Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS

Address for Return,
of Experiments performed under the Act 39 &amp; 40 Vict. c. 77. during 1960."—[Mr. Fletcher-Cooke.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

The Hartlepools

Commander Kerans: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the present rate of unemployment in the Hartlepools; and What prospects there are of further industries and expansions in the area.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling): At mid-July there were 1,278 registered as wholly unemployed in the Hartlepools group of employment exchange areas, a rate of 3·5 per cent. About 1,500 jabs are in prospect. Since I answered a similar Question by my hon. and gallant Friend on 30th March, 1961, several firms have shown interest in going to the Hartlepools area.

Commander Kerans: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I paint out to him that the Hartlepools are now the second worst hit area in the North-East for employment? Can he say what prospects there are in the future, bearing in mind that we have nearly 200 school leavers at the moment, a recession in shipping and the possible withdrawal of the Reserve Fleet? Can my right hon. Friend say what the prospects are of the Americans taking an interest in the area?

Mr. Maudling: There are about 1,500 jobs in prospect. I hope that they will all materialise. If they do, they will certainly improve the prospects in the district.

Local Authorities, Yorkshire (Patent Office Publications)

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: asked the President of the Board of Trade haw many local authorities in Yorkshire have declined to pay the increased subscription now demanded for Patent Office publications.

Mr. Maudling: Three local authorities in Yorkshire have declined to pay the increased charge.

Mr. Mallalieu: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in other important manufacturing areas, apart from these three, there is resentment against these charges? Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that this used to be a free national service, that then charges were imposed and now they have been increased? Can we be reasonably sure that we shall not have further increases in the near future?

Mr. Maudling: This charge put on patent specifications has gone up from £100 to £140 a year. In that period the number of specifications has gone up from 20,000 to 30,000. The ordinary sale price of these specifications would be over £5,000, so I do not think it unreasonable to ask them to pay £140.

Trade Marks Acts

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: asked the President of the Board of Trade what conclusions he has come to in his reconsideration of the difficulties arising from the operation of the Trade Marks Acts; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Maudling: I understand that the hon. Member is referring to the Answers which I gave to him and to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) on 11th July. Since then, directors of both companies concerned have expressed to officials of my Department their sense of the importance of avoiding any confusion on the part of the public between their respective products. When discussions are complete, I will write to the hon. Member.
I have given a direction that when an application is made for the registration of a mark for non-alcoholic drinks and some similar foodstuffs a search should be made for similar marks registered for such things as drugs, disinfectants and cleaning materials. The converse will also apply.

Mr. Mallalieu: I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much.

Factory, Newhouse

Miss Herbison: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the decision of Hollins and Company Limited to cease production at Newhouse, what action he is taking to find a new occupant for the factory which will provide work for the women and men displaced.

Mr. Maudling: The Board's regional office is at present negotiating with a prospective new occupant, who will, it is hoped, provide substantially more jobs in this factory than before.

Miss Herbison: The President of the Board of Trade will be aware that that is good news for those about to lose their work. He will also be aware that the firm likely to take them had already planned a big extension. We are really losing 400 jobs in this area. Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to use his influence with the Board of Trade and with other bodies interested in the bringing of industry to Scotland to get them to work together more closely so that when big prospective industries are on the scene we know about them quickly and start them?

Mr. Maudling: I am certainly anxious to get more firms to come into this part of Scotland. My regional officers are working as hard as they can on this, and I will do all I can to support them.

Motor Cars (Export)

Mr. Chapman: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many motor cars were exported in the first six months of 1961; how this total compares with the same period in 1960; in which overseas markets this decline has mainly occurred; and what estimate he has made of the prospects for improvement in the second half of this year.

Mr. Maudling: 175,306 new cars were exported during the first six months of 1961 compared with 342,415 during the same period last year. The main markets in which a decline occurred were the U.S.A. and Canada and South Africa. While there may be some improvement, exports in the second half of this year are likely to remain well below the record levels achieved in the first half of 1960.

Mr. Chapman: Are not these figures very alarming and is not this something like the worst situation which we have had for about eight years in exports? Is not the Chancellor's action, whatever we think about it, bound to make matters worse in terms of employment in the Midlands? As it points to a very dangerous employment, short time and even redundancy situation in the Midlands in the latter part of the year, would the right hon. Gentleman agree to calling an emergency conference with the motor car manufacturers so that a sudden new crisis does not hit the Midlands without warning later this year?

Mr. Maudling: I agree that these are disappointing figures but there are special reasons for them, particularly in the United States. I have very close contact with both sides of industry through the National Advisory Council, which is carrying out a special study of the export problem. What the figures bring out clearly is that the employment and prosperity of the motor industry very much depends upon its export achievements.

Mr. Cleaver: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that the important factor is to get down the cost of cars and if we cannot get a maximum throughput into our highly mechanised factories we cannot do that? Is he aware that if the taxation of the motor industry goes up any further we shall not have the home demand to justify the heavy capital expenditure involved in plant?

Mr. Maudling: That is a rather wide question, and although I do not entirely accept what my hon. Friend said, I recognise the strength of his argument.

Mr. Lee: In view of the disappointing figures, can the President of the Board of Trade say whether the proposed


extensions of the industry are going ahead at the pace previously proposed?

Mr. Maudling: I have no reason to suppose that they are not.

Motor Cars (Export to Nigeria)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the decline in the sale of British motor cars in Nigeria compared with the increased sale of non-British cars and of complaints of delay and difficulties in servicing British cars; and what action he will take to assist the increase of exports to Nigeria by British motor manufacturers.

Mr. Maudling: Sales of British motor cars in Nigeria have increased steadily in recent years, but the United Kingdom's share of the market has decreased. All aspects of this matter, including the problem of servicing, are being studied jointly with the industry.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that that Answer is extremely ambiguous and conveys no concrete information? Can he say whether, according to the information which he has gathered, the statement implicit in my Question is true and that it is very difficult to find proper servicing for British cars? In that case, what is being done to see that they are serviced properly or that facilities are provided for that purpose?

Mr. Maudling: No doubt better servicing could be provided. We are discussing with industry ways and means by which this can be done.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister of Northern Nigeria had an air-conditioned Rolls Royce, that when it went over a laterite road he was entirely covered in red dust which had come through the air conditioner, and that consequently he got rid of it and is buying an American car?

Mr. Maudling: No, Sir. I am not aware of that

Factory Building Programme, Scotland

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent he expects the current Govern-

ment factory building programme in Scotland, and that for 1962–63, to be affected by the recent decision of Her Majesty's Government regarding the economic situation.

Mr. Maudling: I have not in mind any change in this programme.

Mr. Thomson: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him explicitly to give the House an assurance that, in view of the importance of maintaining the drive for new industry in Scotland, there will be no cuts in the factory building programme during this year or the next financial year?

Mr. Maudling: I do not intend to make any cuts in the programme in Scotland or in any other part of the development districts. As my right hon. and learned Friend said in his speech on 26th July, we will continue to use our powers vigorously to deal with this situation.

Barley (Imports)

Sir A. Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a further statement on the measures taken to prevent the dumping of foreign barley, and so ensure a steady market for the home crop at a price level that does not require unduly heavy Exchequer subsidy.

Mr. Maudling: Yes, Sir. As I told the hon. Member on 7th July, the French authorities have agreed to make no further sales beyond existing contracts and they informed me that the amount still to be sold under existing arrangements did not at that time exceed about 30,000 tons. Similarly the Australian authorities informed me that outstanding deliveries from the old crop did not exceed about 45,000 tons of which a proportion has been sold at above £20 a ton. As I also stated on 7th July, discussions are to be held with the French and Australians about the price at which new sales may be made. These discussions will be based on the need to establish a c.i.f. duty paid price of not less than £20 per ton. As regards Russian barley, agreement has been reached with the Soviet authorities that exports for delivery to the United Kingdom during the 12-month period 1st July, 1961, and 30th June, 1962, shall not exceed 150,000 tons; this compares


with about 340,000 tons delivered in the previous twelve months.

Sir A. Hurd: This is better news. Has my right hon. Friend been able to get an assurance from the Russians that they will not unload barley here at less than £20 a ton, especially during the coming three months, when the weight of the the main harvest will be on the market?

Mr. Maudling: They have agreed to limit their deliveries to 150,000 tons, and I am grateful for their help in this matter. I am certain that as the amount which they can send is limited they will arrange their time of delivery so as to get the maximum price for the product.

Anti-Dumping Duties

Mr. Lipton: asked the President of the Board of Trade why three applications for anti-dumping duties have been under consideration by his Department since September, 1959, June, 1960, and December, 1960, respectively; and when he will come to a decision in these cases.

Mr. Maudling: The Board of Trade announced the decision on corduroy from Spain, advertised in December, 1960, on 28th July. In the other cases mentioned by the hon. Member, the facts relating to dumping and material injury are hard to determine and I cannot say when it will be possible to take a decision.

Mr. Lipton: I do not want to hustle the right hon. Gentleman in the other cases, but does it not appear to him that the anti-dumping machinery in his Department, about which there have been many complaints in recent months, is creaking a little?

Mr. Maudling: I have myself heard no sounds of creaking.

Exports to Canada

Sir C. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade since imports from Canada in the last three years were £308, £312, and £375 million, respectively, and exports were £188, £207, and £213 million, leaving an adverse balance of £387 million, what new steps he is taking to induce the Canadian Government to reduce tariffs and restrictions against British imports and to allow the United Kingdom to sell to Canada as much as

it buys, since this could go a long way to solve the United Kingdom balance-of-payments problem; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Maudling: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, when recently in Canada, took the opportunity to stress the importance we attach to access to the Canadian market in view of the large market we provide for Canadian goods. We cannot, however, necessarily expect bilateral balance with a particular country, and Canada is a market in which our exports face no import restrictions, enjoy substantial preferences and have expanded by more than half over the last ten years.

Sir C. Osborne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Canadians are buying far more from the United States than they are selling and that they are paying for the excess imports from America by selling far more to us than they are buying from us? Is he aware that we are paying for that excess of imports of American goods into Canada and that in addition the Americans are selling to us £230 million more a year than they are buying from us? If only the North American trade were settled there would be no problem for this country. Have we not a right to press both Canada and the United States to encourage British exports into their markets?

Mr. Maudling: This triangular pattern of trade is traditional. If we try to balance our trade bilaterally with every country the only result will be a reduction in the total volume of trade. I do not think that we are entitled to press these countries to encourage our exports, but we are entitled to press them not to put any barriers in the way so that we can earn as much as we can in their markets.

Sir C. Osborne: There are barriers both in the United States and in Canada. If my right hon. Friend does not know about them let him ask any textile manufacturer. Surely he knows this. Are we not entitled to press them to help us or to stop their goods coming here?

Mr. Maudling: If my hon. Friend looks at the comparative barriers to trade in this country and in the case of most American goods, I think he will revise his views.

Mr. Jay: Have the Government recently approached the Canadian Government and suggested that they should be willing to reduce their tariffs on the import of manufactured goods from this country, provided that we continue our present tariff-free entry to Canadian goods here? Would not that meet the point?

Mr. Maudling: If that involved creating a wider margin of preference it would be ruled out by G.A.T.T. We have approached the Canadian Government recently on a number of individual points in which we think they ought to be able to help.

Cotton Textiles (Geneva Agreement)

Mr. Thornton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make available in the Library copies of the agreement reached at Geneva recently between the major cotton textile and importing countries; and if he will make a statement on the agreement.

Mr. Maudling: Yes, Sir. These arrangements, which were agreed ad referendum, include a short-term arrangement for the year beginning 1st October, 1961, providing for increased access to certain markets at present restricted and for bilateral negotiations for avoidance of disruption in markets which are not restricted. A G.A.T.T. Cotton Textiles Committee will be established and will meet in the autumn to consider a longer term solution to the problems of international trade in cotton textiles.

Mr. Thornton: Although I have not seen the full text of the agreement, it appears to me that in the short term it will have the effect of freezing American imports at about one-twentieth of the level of domestic production and freezing imports into this country at approximately half of our level of domestic production.

Mr. Maudling: The detailed effects need a considerable amount of working out, but on balance it will help to produce a certain increased stability in the international trade in these commodities.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that while the details are being worked out a good deal of alarm and despondency is being spread

throughout the textile industry in this country? Has he considered what would be the effects of the agreement now made if this country persisted in its attempts to become part of the Common Market? Would that mean that there would be a Completely free flow of European textiles into Britain?

Mr. Mandling: On the whole, the effect of our relations with the Common Market, which are industrialised countries, is rather different from the question of the imports of textiles from low-cost producers, which is that mainly in the mind of the G.A.T.T. discussions.

Industries (Consultation)

Mr. Rhodes: asked the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements his Department makes fur dealing with individual industries; and what kind of information his Department calls for from each of the industries in his care.

Mr. Maudling: My Department keeps in touch with individual industries mainly through trade associations but also in direct discussions with firms. There are some consultative committees relating to particular industries. In addition to statistical information, the views of industries are sought on many aspects of Government policy which affect their trading interests.

Mr. Rhodes: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that he is getting enough information on such items as orders arid stocks to be able to give him an up-to-date picture of the State of an industry at any time?

Mr. Maudling: Although we are all the time improving our statistical services, particularly on orders and stocks, I am certain that a good deal more can be done. But we must also always counter-balance the desirability of additional information against the considerable inconvenience created to business if one asks too many questions.

Productivity

Mr. Rhodes: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now begin, as an experiment with one industry, the practice of calling for an assessment of productivity in the current year and a forecast of productivity for 1962.

Mr. Maudling: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is looking carefully at this suggestion in the review of the processes of consultation and forecasting which is being carried out in acordance with the statement which he made last week.

Mr. Rhodes: May I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman selects an industry with a very good record for work study and inter-firm comparison.

Mr. Maudling: I am grateful for that suggestion.

Cotton Textiles (Imports from Hong Kong)

Mr. Bidgood: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in the light of discussions between the Hong Kong Government and industry, he will now state whether exports of duty-free cotton textiles from Hong Kong to the United Kingdom will continue to be limited after 31st January, 1962, on the lines of proposals made by the Government on 30th June.

Mr. Maudling: The Advisory Board which is representative of the Hong Kong industry has advised that, subject to some reservations which are being further considered, the proposals should be accepted.

Mr. Bidgood: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the relief that may be felt in Lancashire that the uncertainties as to what might happen after 31st Janaury have been resolved? Can he say whether the agreements with India and Pakistan will automatically be extended? Can he assure me that he will work to ensure that this short-term solution might be translated into some longer-term agreement?

Mr. Maudling: I shall be very glad indeed when this problem is resolved. There are still some reservations which we have to sort out. We cannot be absolutely clear what the answer will be. The purpose is to bring the Hong Kong agreement in line, in point of time, with the Indian and Pakistan agreements. It is due to expire a year before they do. That will give all of us another year in which to look at the problem again. We have to recognise that India, Pakistan and Hong Kong all have an interest in our market.

Steel Company of Wales (Coal)

Mr. Rees: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has taken a decision on the application by the Steel Company of Wales for a licence to import coal from the United States of America.

Mr. Maudling: In consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, I have decided to refuse this application.

Mr. Rees: In view of that reply, may I ask my right hon. Friend to use his best endeavours and all his influence to ensure that the National Coal Board and the British Transport Commission get the right coal to the works of this company, which are so valuable to us, at the right time and at the right price? If they do not, will he review the situation?

Mr. Maudling: This is a difficult question. In deciding to refuse this application I did not pre-judge the future. To allow the private import of coal would be a major departure in policy, and I took the view that, when the new Chairman of the National Coal Board is looking at the progress of the Board's modernisation plans, it is too early to make a departure from the present arrangements. But I emphasise that I was dealing with a particular application.

Mr. Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the delay in reaching this decision? Will there be an equal amount of stalling in future? Will he attempt to evaluate the loss of confidence suffered by the mining industry on each of these occasions?

Mr. Maudling: I do not see why the mining industry should suffer loss of confidence. There is tremendous demand for its product if it is produced at the right price.

Mr. Wise: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is some inconsistency in this between the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues to increase production by encouraging exports, and this effort to protect a particular industry, first by penal taxation of an alternative form of fuel, and secondly by total prohibition of imports?

Mr. Maudling: I do not think "penal taxation" is a fair description. Most of our industries have some form of tariff protection. My decision in this case was based not upon principle for the future but upon the fact that, while Lord Roberts, is looking at the position of the National Coal Board's development, it would be unwise to make what would be a major departure in policy.

Mr. Jay: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any application from this company for the import of cheap Russian oil?

Mr. Maudling: Not so far as I am aware, but I would like notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Treasury Staff (Qualifications)

Mr. de Ferranti: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of the second secretaries, third secretaries, under-secretaries and assistant secretaries in Her Majesty's Treasury hold degrees or qualification in physics, mathematics or engineering; and what percentage this is of the total numbers in the above grades.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): Seven, or about 9 per cent., of the members of these grades on the Treasury strength hold degrees in mathematics or physics. None is a qualified engineer.

Mr. de Ferranti: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, so far as one can see, about 20 per cent. of these gentlemen were educated at Balliol College, Oxford? Does not he feel that, particularly in view of the Reports of the Plowden Committee and of the "Three Wise Men", it might be a good thing to increase the percentage of those with experience of quantitative science? If he does think so, is he prepared to do anything about it?

Sir E. Boyle: This is a big question which we might profitably debate another time. A great deal of thinking is being done about the importance of skilled and qualified advice to Ministers. In the Treasury we receive today far more rigorous advice on economic ques-

tions than might have been the case 20 or 30 years ago.

Dr. King: Had the Chancellor received any advice from his scientific advisers when he decided to revise the Burnham award to science teachers?

Sir E. Boyle: I think that is another question.

Mr. Speaker: So do I.

War Loan

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the price of 31 per cent. War Loan on 1st October, 1951; and what was the price on 1st August, 1961.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Barber): 8613/16 and 529/16 respectively.

Mr. H. Hynd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the tape today, the price has gone down further to £51 5s.? I have no personal interest to declare in this matter, but is he aware that the people who patriotically lent their money at a time of national emergency are suffering as a result of Government mismanagement? What is he going to do about it?

Mr. Barber: I have on a number of occasions dealt with this matter, and I repeat that I am well aware, as is my right hon. and learned Friend, of the difficulties facing people who hold this stock. For the reasons I have explained at length before, particularly on 7th December last, there is no way in which we can take special action to help.

Dame Irene Ward: Most unsatisfactory.

Mr. Jay: is the hon. Gentleman entirely happy and content with a situation in which Government credit stands at the lowest levels ever recorded in the history of this country?

Mr. Barber: No, Sir. It is clear from my answers, now and previously, that we are not content with the hardship which is being suffered by individuals as a result of what has happened. But, for the reasons I have explained frankly to the House, I do not see how we can help.

Mr. C. Royle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated cost to the Revenue of extending to holders of 3½ per cent. War Loan a similar concession to that whereby the first £15 of Post Office Savings Bank interest is exempted from Income Tax.

Mr. Barber: I am afraid that it would not be possible to answer this Question without information that is not readily available about the sizes of holdings by individuals and the tax liabilities of present holders.

Mr. Royle: Is it not a fact that the figure must be quite a small one? In view of the supplementary questions which have been asked earlier this afternoon on this subject, will not the hon. Member now recommend to his right hon. and learned Friend that these patriotic investors should be given some relief in the somewhat difficult situation in which they find themselves because of the low standing of this stock?

Mr. Barber: For the reasons that I have given the House I think that the hon. Member will agree, on reflection, that it is not possible to give even a rough estimate. But in any event I do not think that it would be right to depart from the general rule that tax reliefs should be related to the amount of the taxpayer's income and his personal circumstances, and should apply generally to all taxpayers whose incomes and circumstances qualify them, and not depend upon the possession of a certain stock.

Mr. Royle: Is there not some parallel here between Post Office savings and War Bonds? Cannot the Minister do something to bring them into line?

Mr. Barber: No, because the reason for the relief given in respect of Post Office savings is as an incentive to savings, whereas what the hon. Member is asking for is on grounds of relieving hardship resulting from holdings of a certain stock.

Public Boards (Chairmen)

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the difference in the number of hours worked by a full-time, and those worked by a part-time, chairman of a public board.

Sir E. Boyle: The amount of time worked by a part-time chairman varies with the appointment.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I asked this question in view of the rather curious Answer given recently by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power who, in defending the payment of a salary of £6,000 a year—which I understand is £250 a year more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer's—to this gentleman working part-time, said that the office of chairman is not part-time in the ordinary sense of the word? May we know what the ordinary sense of the word is and how this is extraordinary?

Sir E. Boyle: I anticipated the first part of that question. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power gave a satisfactory answer. Full-time and part-time chairmen are both entirely responsible for the whole business of their boards, but in some posts it is realised that this responsibility can be properly discharged in less than a full working week. Salaries are calculated pro rata on the amount of time an individual is expected to have to devote to the business.

Salaries, Dividends and Wages

Mr. Ridley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the percentage increase in salaries, dividends and wages which the country can afford this year.

Mr. Barber: As my right hon. Friend said in his statement on 25th July, his view as regards increases in wages and salaries is that there must be a pause until productivity has caught up and as regards dividends that a further general increase this year would not be justified.

Mr. Ridley: Does not my hon. Friend agree that this goes to the very crux of our economic problems? Will he give the maximum publicity to this statement at this time? Does he agree that this is the best way in which he can help the holders of War Loan in future?

Mr. Barber: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend in saying that this goes to the crux of the problem. I think that hon. Members on both sides will agree


that what my right hon. and learned Friend has said about this matter has already received considerable publicity, but I know that he would be grateful not only if it could be made more widely known but also if it could be explained in more detail.

Sir G. Nicholson: Is not my hon. Friend aware that these exhortations have been made in the past but have quickly worn off and had no effect? Will he consider suggesting to his right hon. and learned Friend that he writes to the chairmen of boards of public companies stressing and underlining the need, both economically and psychologically, for restricting increases in dividends?

Mr. Barber: I will certainly draw that suggestion to the notice of my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Lee: Has the Economic Secretary any idea how long the pause will last, because the Government's economic policies look like making it a permanency before production rises?

Mr. Barber: No. The length of the pause will obviously depend on how we get on. I am bound to say that I am surprised that what my right hon. and learned Friend has said does not have the support of the hon. Gentleman. After all, to consider last year alone—between the first quarter of 1960 and the first quarter of 1961—wages and salaries per head rose by 7 per cent. In the same period productivity rose by less than 1 per cent. What my right hon. and learned Friend has said, as regards both wages and salaries, and dividends, is reasonable and I believe that it will have the support of the majority of people in this country.

Richard Thomas and Baldwins

Mr. Morris: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an assurance that no announcement regarding the sale of Richard Thomas and Baldwins will be made during the Summer Recess.

Mr. Barber: It would not at any time be appropriate for me to give such an assurance.

Mr. Morris: Will the Economic Secretary tell the House during which Recess it is intended to sell Richard

Thomas and Baldwins? Is it intended to sell it and follow the pattern of last year, when Llanelly Steel was sold three days after the House had gone down for the Recess, Staveley Iron in September, and S. G. Brown during the Whitsun Recess?

Mr. Barber: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows—at least, if he has read the explanations which were given he should know—that his implications as to what happened in connection with those other companies are quite unfounded. The Government have stated their general policy on this matter. I cannot accept, neither can my right hon. and learned Friend, extra-statutory restrictions on carrying out a policy which has been approved by Parliament and embodied in legislation.

Treasury Valuer (Property Assessments)

Miss Herbison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what right of appeal there is under his regulations against assessments of property made by the Treasury assessor.

Sir E. Boyle: Properties in the occupation of the Crown are not rateable but ex gratia contributions in lieu of rates are granted to the appropriate local authority. The basis on which such contribution is made is determined by the Treasury Valuer after discussion with the representative of the Rating Authority. There is no statutory right of appeal.

Miss Herbison: Is the Financial Secretary aware that tenants of houses which belong, for instance, to the National Health Service have been very seriously perturbed by the increase in the assessment of those houses? They are very annoyed indeed that neither the individuals, nor the boards of management, nor the regional hospital boards have any right of appeal whatever, whereas anyone else in any other property which is assessed by a county or city assessor has the right of appeal. What do the Government intend to do to give these people the democratic rights which are enjoyed by the vast majority of people?

Sir E. Boyle: If there is a special case which the hon. Lady would like to take up with me, I shall be very glad to have it considered. I assure the hon. Lady


that the Treasury Valuer is always prepared to re-open cases where his valuation is objected to, whether on the ground that it is too high or too low, and to take account of any adjustments which have been made to comparable property as a result of statutory appeals. Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to get in touch with me about it.

Miss Herbison: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that I get in touch with him. I have already been in touch with the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am glad to hear that the Treasury Valuer is willing to reconsider his decisions, but the important point is that people should have the right of appeal, which they have not got.

Sir E. Boyle: We cannot debate this subject now. The only concern of the Treasury Valuer and his department is to arrive at a fair valuation of the property concerned, having regard to other comparable property and to valuation law.

Goya Picture (Duke of Wellington)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has now received the advice of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art with reference to the export of Goya's portrait of the Duke of Wellington; and whether he has received a request from the trustees of the National Gallery for a special grant towards the purchase of this picture.

Sir E. Boyle: I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. and learned Friend's statement on this subject made in reply to the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle) yesterday.

Mr. Robinson: I am sure that the whole House will want to join in the expression of gratitude to the Wolfson Foundation for its act of great generosity towards the nation and also to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his part in ensuring that this great masterpiece is in its proper home on the walls of the National Gallery. Will the Financial Secretary explain the Chancellor of the Exchequer's curious conduct with regard to my Question? It has been on the Order Paper for ten days. Why did he find it necessary to get one of his hon. Friends to table a Question

for Written Answer yesterday, for which only a few hours' notice was given? If there was such a tearing hurry to make the announcement, why did he not get in touch with the hon. Member who already had a Question on the Order Paper?

Sir E. Boyle: I wish to say two things in reply to that. First, the hon. Gentleman is literally the last hon. Member in the House to whom anyone could wish to be discourteous. Secondly, I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has written to him today. The point is simply this. One can be fuller and more explicit and put greater detail in a Written Answer than is possible in an Oral Answer. That is the sole reason. My right hon. and learned Friend has written to the hon. Gentleman and would like to express his full apologies for any unintended discourtesy to the hon. Member.

Mr. Robinson: Will the Financial Secretary tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I find his explanation totally unconvincing but I naturally accept his apology? Is he aware that I raised this point only because Ministers are making a habit of this? It is a very bad habit, and I hope that Ministers will desist in future.

Economic Development (Co-ordination)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken since 25th July to formulate a national plan to raise production, promote exports, and achieve a better distribution of wealth; and what steps he is now contemplating to secure the elimination of waste and the fulfilment of essential needs.

Mr. Barber: I have nothing to add as yet to my right hon. and learned Friend's statements about the co-ordination of our economic development in the House on 25th and 26th July.

Mr. Swingler: Does that mean that no steps at all have been taken? We have heard all about cuts, wage restraint, and rising interest charges. When will some positive policies be produced to raise production, increase exports, and stop speculative waste? Has the Treasury no such proposals?

Mr. Barber: My right hon. and learned Friend explained when he made his statement that he deliberately did not want to be specific about the machinery involved, because he wanted to formulate it in consultation with those concerned. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. and learned Friend has not been inactive on this matter since 25th July. In regard to the hon. Gentleman's reference to waste, the new plans for public expenditure will reinforce the drive against wasteful expenditure and will make the economy better able to meet the essential needs to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Sir T. Beamish: Since the exercise of sensible restraint in the payment of increased wages, salaries and dividends and the bringing to an end of outmoded restrictive practices are undoubtedly two essential prerequisites to the raising of productivity, is my hon. Friend comforted by the knowledge that he has the loyal support of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) in both those matters?

Mr. Barber: I am grateful for that.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Economic Secretary aware that what we have heard so far about the results of his measures has been cuts in the provision of some essential needs, as, for example, a slow down in municipal housing, and the creation of a great deal of disruption in the education service? If this is all the contribution the Government have to make, it will not do much to raise production.

Mr. Barber: I can only suggest, with no disrespect to the hon. Gentleman, that he reads once again my right hon. and learned Friend's statement.

Income Tax (Schedule A)

Mr. J. Howard: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual cost of collecting Schedule A tax in terms of salaries, superannuation, office accommodation and all other expenses and overheads attributable to the processes of assessment collection and repayment of this tax.

Sir E. Boyle: Approximately £4·4 million.

Mr. Howard: As only £45 million is yielded by way of Schedule A tax from

owner-occupiers, does not my hon. Friend agree that the cost of collecting it is quite disproportionate, and that when one also takes into account the time spent by accountants and bankers in making claims on behalf of their clients the amount of national resources applied in the collection and settling of this tax is really disproportionate?

Sir E. Boyle: With respect to my hon. Friend, I think that it would be false to make too much of this. Although these percentages are higher than the average of Inland Revenue taxes, which is only 1·48 per cent., it would be ridiculous to suggest that a tax which costs 3 or 4 per cent. of its total yield to collect is automatically not worth collecting.

Company Taxation (Expenses)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will disallow the charging against company taxation of expenses on country houses, sporting properties and leases, boxes at racecourses, and similar items.

Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. and learned Friend will bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind when he comes to review the whole question of expenditure on business entertaining before the next Budget.

Mr. Ridley: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is absolutely no justification for this sort of thing? There is no need, surely, for my right hon. and learned Friend to wait. Could not he simply make a statement to this effect immediately and satisfy many people who are disturbed about this?

Sir E. Boyle: I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend on this. Let me make a brief statement now. To the extent that directors and senior employees derive personal benefit from facilities of this sort provided by their companies, they are liable to tax on the costs to the company of providing them with the benefit. So far as they enjoy such facilities in the process of business entertaining, I think that my right hon. and learned Friend indicated sympathy with my hon. Friend's point of view in his Budget speech when he referred to the unhealthy excess in some business entertaining, and, as I have replied this


afternoon, he is engaged at this moment in a review of this whole question.

Mr. Jay: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not have to wait until next year to raise taxes by £200 million, why does he have to wait until next year to do something about this?

Sir E. Boyle: This is exactly the kind of subject where it is very undesirable to bring in precise fresh detailed legislation before one has examined all the aspects pretty thoroughly.

Mr. Kershaw: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that this matter is undoubtedly a scandal and ought to be stopped?

Sir E. Boyle: I have already referred to my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget speech. I suggest that perhaps my hon. Friend also recalls what I said to the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) on an Amendment to the Finance Bill, that my right hon. and learned Friend has no sympathy with those who regard this subject as something beyond the competence of this House. This is certainly a subject which my right hon. and learned Friend takes most seriously.

Mr. H. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman says that the Chancellor needs time to study this difficult problem. As we gave him all the evidence he needed on this on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill on 9th May, 1956, together with detailed proposals of how to deal with it—I will give the hon. Gentleman the column reference if he wishes—why is it that after five years we are getting only statements that the Chancellor does not feel any sympathy for this racket?

Sir E. Boyle: It is not a matter only of the need for time to consider the problem, but time to consider the precise terms of any legislation which may be necessary.

Government and Local Authority Borrowing

Sir J. Pitman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total of Government and local authority borrowing which will be, or will become, repayable on or before 30th June, 1962; what is the total of the corresponding

net liquidity from which such sums would need to be repaid; and what amount has been borrowed from overseas lenders which will be, or will become, repayable on or before that date by all borrowers in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Barber: Apart from floating debt and debt repayable on demand the amount of Government borrowing repayable in the year ending 30th June, 1962, is about £930 million. On the basis of the position in March, 1960, about £1,080 million of local authority loan debt is likely to fall due for repayment in the same period.
I regret that the answer to the second and third parts of the Question is not available.

Sir J. Pitman: Can the Minister give the House an assurance that, in respect of this £2,000 million of short-term debt, he will ascertain as soon as he possibly can the other two vital factors in the assessment of the situation as regards the national liquidity?

Mr. Barber: I was in the difficulty that I did not fully understand what my hon. Friend meant by the reference in his Question to "corresponding net liquidity". If he gives me further information, I will do my best to answer it, but it is difficult in any event, assuming that he is referring to the general credit base, to give an answer with regard to a future date. As regards borrowing from and repayments to overseas lenders, which is the second point in his Question which I am able to answer, I am afraid that figures are not available in the form in which my hon. Friend seeks them, because he referred to all borrowers in the United Kingdom.

Sir J. Pitman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total proportionate amount by which Government and local authority borrowings which will become repayable after 30th June, 1962, will be advancing in a year towards maturity, on the assumption that all such debts which have a compulsive date will be so repaid on the last date and those with a permissive date will be repaid only if the rate of interest is 6 per cent. or more.

Mr. Barber: On the assumption given in the Question, the proportion of Government debt, other than floating


debt and debt repayable on demand, which will fall due for repayment in the year following 30th June, 1962, is approximately 8 per cent. It is not possible, at this stage, to calculate with any certainty what proportion of local authority borrowing will fall due for repayment in the period in question. But on the basis of figures relating to the position in 1960 about 17 per cent. of local authority outstanding loan debt is likely to fall due for repayment in the twelve months beginning 30th June, 1962.

New Universities

Mrs. White: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now state the location of the fourth new university.

Sir E. Boyle: I have nothing to add to my right hon. and learned Friend's Answer of 18th May.

Mrs. White: Is the hon. Member aware that his right hon. Friend said that we could expect this announcement within two or three months, and that it therefore should be possible for the Government to make it very quickly? Further, can he assure the House that there will be no pause in the establishment of further university places in this country? We are going to be seriously short of them within the next decade.

Sir E. Boyle: I regret that it has not been possible to make the announcement before the Recess. I can only say that an announcement will be made as soon as possible. In answer to the second half of the hon. Lady's supplementary question, it is not strictly on the Order Paper, but I can say here and now that my right hon. and learned Friend's measures of 25th July do not include any changes in university building programmes already announced.

Inter-Parliamentary Union and Commonwealth Parliamentary Association

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what application he has received from the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for additional funds to enable them to provide facilities for hon. Members to make periodic visits overseas.

Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. and learned Friend has received no specific proposals on these lines.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that no request has come from the Inter-Parliamentary Union or the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for additional funds? Is he aware that I was informed by the secretaries of both organisations that they were making application?

Sir E. Boyle: No formal approach has been made for a review of the grant. Lord Munster, as Honorary Treasurer of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, has written to my right hon. and learned Friend informally, and to other officers of the Association, seeking their views on an expansion of the Association's activities. I am not prepared to say what advice he has received. [Interruption.] If we are not going to make a distinction between a formal request and an informal inquiry a good deal of our business will be very difficult.

Mr. Shinwell: I do not say that the hon. Member did so deliberately, but he actually misled us. Can he say what his right hon. and learned Friend proposes to do, now that this informal application has been received? Is he aware that this would mean only a few thousand pounds at the most? Surely we are net so hard up that we cannot afford that?

Sir E. Boyle: I cannot add to what I have said. The House has been made aware of the great need to conserve our foreign exchange at the present time, and the importance of this House setting an example in these matters. Beyond that I cannot go.

Public Works Loan Board (Interest Rates)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the revised interest rates on loans to local authorities from the Public Works Loan Board.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes in interest rates on Public Works Loan Board housing loans are proposed following the latest raising of the Bank


Rate; and if he will remove restrictions on the quantity of such loans.

Mr. Barber: Government policy is that the rates of interest charged by the Public Works Loan Board should be kept in line with those ruling on the market. Market rates have been rising in recent weeks, and Public Works Loan Board rates will accordingly be raised. From Saturday, 5th August, the rates of interest charged by the Board will be:




Per cent.


Up to 5 years
…
7½


Over 5 but not over 15 years
…
7½


Over 15 but not over 30 years
…
7


Over 30 years
…
7


It is not proposed to alter the conditions on which Public Works Loan Board loans will be made available. In other words, the Board will continue to act as lender of last resort to local authorities who cannot borrow on reasonable terms on the market.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the heavy burdens which will be placed upon local authorities as a result of these changes, where local authorities have received loan sanction prior to the announced increase in the Bank Rate should not the Government provide the necessary funds, through the Public Works Loan Board, at a fixed, reasonable interest, so as to permit local authorities to avoid some of the burden that is being placed upon them?

Mr. Barber: I can best answer the right hon. and learned Member's question by saying that the normal rules which have hitherto applied when there has been a change in the rates of interest will apply on this occasion.

Mr. Allaun: Is not that a monstrous reply? Is it not going to add 10s. or 15s. a week to the rent of the average council flat? Will it not drive rents so high that many families who desperately need council flats will be unable to go into them?

Mr. Barber: Unless the rates charged by the Public Works Loan Board are kept in line with those ruling in the market, local authorities borrowing from the Board would be at an advantage or a disadvantage—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—as compared with those borrowing on the market. I will explain if hon. Members will listen. Surely it

would be unfair as between one local authority and another if those authorities borrowing from the Board could borrow more cheaply than those borrowing from the market.

Mr. H. Wilson: Who, in heaven's name, does the hon. Gentleman think is responsible for the rates ruling in the market? It was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who increased the Bank Rate last week. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he thinks it is possible for local authorities to meet the enormous problems of overcrowding and slum clearance with Public Works Loan Board borrowing rates of 7 per cent. and 7½ per cent.? Since the purpose of the high Bank Rate is simply to bring into this country "hot" money which we do not need and cannot use, and which causes fresh problems when it goes out again, will the hon. Gentleman tell his right hon. and learned Friend to reconsider the whole policy?

Mr. Barber: No, Mr. Speaker. The reasons for the increase in the Bank Rate were explained at length by my right hon. and learned Friend in the debate the other day, and there would be no point in my going over all that ground again this afternoon. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman understands the reasons perfectly well, but it must follow from the policy which has been pursued by the Government since October, 1955, with regard to local authority borrowing, that the rates of interest on loans made by the Public Works Loan Board must be kept in line with the rates ruling in the market. Otherwise, the whole system becomes completely unfair.

Sir J. Pitman: Is not it equally true that while rents may be increased savings are increased, as the saver gets a higher rate of interest? Is it not true that high rates of interest are beneficial to savers and that it is the saver we wish to help at the moment?

Mr. Barber: I think it is recognised by most people who have studied this matter that the general effect of the action taken by my right hon. and learned Friend will be of benefit to the economy. But I should like to make plain that the raising of these rates is not a deliberate measure to restrict local authority capital expenditure. It is


simply an action taken in line with the policy pursued since 1955 in dealing with interest rates on loans made by the Public Works Loan Board.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT (FOREIGN SECRETARY'S SPEECH)

Mrs. Butler: asked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at Buckingham on 22nd July, about unilateral nuclear disarmament represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Yes, Sir.

Mrs. Butler: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Berlin crisis has demonstrated the complete failure of the nuclear deterrent policy, and increased public desire that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should concentrate on finding a constructive alternative to this bankrupt policy, instead of indulging in cheap sneers against supporters of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament?

The Prime Minister: I understand the hon. Lady's point of view, but I do not think that it is the general point of view of this House.

Mr. S. Silverman: While the point of view of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament may not represent the general view of this House, does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is the view of this House that people who accept that view and work for it are paid propagandists? That is what the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said.

The Prime Minister: I think that a lot of very sincere people are exploited by the Communists who try to make use of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRICES, PRODUCTIVITY AND INCOMES (COUNCIL'S REPORT)

Mr. Ginsburg: asked the Prime Minister what instructions he has given, or is considering giving, to Government Departments following the latest Report of the Council on Prices, Productivity and Incomes.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member will have noted from the statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we have the matters discussed in the Council's Report very much in mind, and we will certainly give very careful consideration to its views. I do not consider, however, that any specific instructions to Departments are necessary.

Mr. Ginsburg: I welcome that limited follow-up, but is it not a fantastic state of affairs that the Chancellor's actions should be in direct variance with the Council's advice? May I ask the Prime Minister why neither he nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week told the House that this Report had been received? Finally, given that the Report is dated 13th July, surely the Government could have ensured by special means that it was available to the House when the debate took place last week?

The Prime Minister: I think that the Council made it quite clear and emphasised that there was a distinction between long-term considerations and the short-term measures which the Chancellor thought it necessary to take.

Mr. H. Wilson: When we debated inflation on a previous occasion, when the Minister of Aviation was Chancellor, the only concrete proposal he made was to set up this Council. As the Council has been sitting for many years, and the quality of its Reports is improving so much, why did the Prime Minister not take account of that Report in the debate? Will he specifically answer my hon. Friend's question? Since the Prime Minister and the Chancellor had this Report three days before the debate, why was it not placed in the Library? Had the Prime Minister read it before he spoke in the debate?

The Prime Minister: I was not allowed to say very much in the debate.

Mr. E. Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there had been a greater readiness by both sides of industry to accept the advice of earlier Reports we should be in a better position today?

Sir G. Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that so many Reports of various sorts are presented to the Government and Departments and then no


clear and definite answer is given by the Government or by the Departments on the question of the recommendations in those Reports over many years? Will a Report like this one receive the considered comments of the Government? Will the Report of the Plowden Committee similarly receive comments and answers?

The Prime Minister: I think that both these Reports will be very valuable in the framing of long-term policy, but I do not think that they affect the necessity for the short-term measures which the Chancellor took.

Mr. Jay: In case the Prime Minister did not hear my hon. Friend's question, can he say why this Report was not published before last week's debate?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I am afraid that I cannot.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (BROADCAST)

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister whether, in his broadcast to the nation on Friday, 4th August, he intends to make any reference to the future of wage negotiating machinery in both the public and private sectors of industry.

The Prime Minister: I hope that the hon. Member will look in and listen.

Mr. Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that I will, out of a sense of duty and some entertainment. But does he realise that there are thousands of workers in this country at this moment, and particularly public employees, who fear that the Government are increasingly interfering in the negotiating machinery, in some instances set up by Statute? Will the right hon. Gentleman give a specific assurance that, as regards the teachers anyway, he will not interfere in that way? If he does interfere, does he not realise that he will be faced with a very serious situation in the educational world in September? Does he not further recognise that, in regard to the Government's appeal for wage restraint, the motto of many of these workers is, "Keep your 'pause' off me"?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful for the valuable thoughts that the hon. Member has given me for the benefit of my broadcast.

Mr. Lee: Does not the Prime Minister agree that the Chancellor's statement—

especially as it concerns negotiating machinery in public industries—is one of the most serious statements ever made in this House? Does he appreciate that in fact it means the suspension of the whole of the negotiating machinery, covering many millions of employees, and that if his advice is taken by the private sector, the same thing will emerge in the case of private industry? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when, either in peace or war, British industry has ever been denuded of the whole of its negotiating machinery?

The Prime Minister: That is a misstatement of what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said. He appealed for a pause before large wage increases were given without regard to productivity.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister give a specific assurance to the teaching profession that the agreement reached by the Burnham Committee will be sustained by the Government without any reduction whatsoever in it?

The Prime Minister: That is another question, but I think that the Government's position has already been made quite clear.

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that in his broadcast to the nation on Friday, 4th August, he will be appealing for national unity, he will share the time available with the Leader of the Opposition.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I fear that the right hon. Gentleman has gone away.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an increasing number of the public wish that he would go away? Is he further aware that, according to the latest public information polls, he represents much less than half our population? In those circumstances, if may amend my Question, will he not consider handing over the whole broadcast time to my right hon. Friend?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member has done the best he could with his Question, but he really ought to have withdrawn it.

Mr. G. Brown: My hon. Friend in fact did rather better than the right hon. Gentleman. Since the circumstances of this broadcast, which is by invitation of


the B.B.C., are a little unusual, will he bear in mind that if he becomes controversial in the broadcast we shall certainly want the right of reply?

The Prime Minister: That is not a matter for me.

PRESS (D NOTICES)

Mr. G. Brown: Mr. G. Brown (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister what changes in restricting publication of defence matters have recently been made and if they were made with his authority.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): A D notice was issued on 27th July, reducing the restrictions contained in two previous notices.
The D notice of 27th July was, like all D notices, issued after agreement in draft with the Press representatives on the Services, Press and Broadcasting Committee. I did not authorise it personally myself.

Mr. Brown: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that under the guise of reducing it, on the face of it, the restriction would appear to have been increased very much, and that there is a blanket black-out on news? Will he consider suggesting to the Press, the Newspaper Proprietors' Association and the others, that they look at the level of the calibre of their representatives on the Committee? Since we have the Radcliffe Committee, and all other matters affecting security are being referred to it, will the right hon. Gentleman refer this notice for the consideration of the Committee, as to whether it is necessary?

The Prime Minister: The old notices asked for a general restriction on information about all kinds of weapons and equipment. The new notice specifies the type of information which cannot be published, and leaves it open to the Press to publish any information not specified in the notice. Therefore, the new notice is less restrictive than the old notices.
I will, of course, consider whether the Press is satisfied. It makes its own appointments, but if there is anything in that, we will certainly consider it.
Regarding the third part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, about the D notices, which have been operated for many years with agreement, and what

rôle they should have in the general security arrangements, I should be glad to refer that to the Radcliffe Committee and ask for its advice as to the value of the notices.

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman's answer to the third part of my question was not quite an answer to what I asked. No doubt it is my fault. Would the Prime Minister refer this particular notice to the Committee and ask whether the Committee feels it is necessary, since many of us consider that the description given by the right hon. Gentleman is not the description which it merits?

The Prime Minister: Nobody can deny that it is a fact that this notice is less restrictive than the ones before, which were general in character. This one gives a particular list. However, I will refer both this specific question and the general question to the Radcliffe Committee. I think that it would be of great value for the Committee to advise us whether this is useful or whether there should be some alteration.

Mr. Strachey: Has the Prime Minister considered the importance of the feeling of almost all journalists concerned that the position is exactly the reverse of what he has now expressed, that the old notices were specific and that this is general, and that the effect will be far more restrictive, though possibly it was not intended to be? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this again, because that is the opinion which is held about the real effect?

The Prime Minister: The old notices asked for a general restriction on information on all kinds of weapons and equipment and the new notice specifies certain types. I will certainly look at it again, or ask the Radcliffe Committee to look at it. I would call the attention of the House to the fact that the chairman of the Services, Press and Broadcasting Committee is an official of this body. There are three other official members and eleven members representing the Press, the B.B.C. and Independent Television. Therefore, this is not a decision which the chairman can take, or about which he can overrule the Committee. This is an agreed decision of a Committee on which the officials number four against, I think, eleven others.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment to Question [2nd August]:
That this House supports the decision of Her Majesty's Government to make formal application under Article 237 of the Treaty of Rome in order to initiate negotiations to see if satisfactory arrangements can be made to meet the special interests of the United Kingdom, of the Commonwealth and of the European Free Trade Association; and further accepts the undertaking of Her Majesty's Government that no agreement affecting these special interests or involving British sovereignty will be entered into until it has been approved by this House after full consultation with other Commonwealth countries, by whatever procedure they may generally agree.—[The Prime Minister.]

Which Amendment was, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
notes the decision of Her Majesty's Government to make formal application under Article 237 of the Treaty of Rome in order to initiate negotiations to see if satisfactory arrangements can be made to meet the special interests of the United Kingdom, of the Commonwealth and of the European Free Trade Association; regrets that Her Majesty's Government will be conducting these negotiations from a position of grave economic weakness; and declares that Great Britain should ewer the European Economic Community only if this House gives its approval and if the conditions negotiated are generally acceptable to a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference and accord with our obligations and pledges to other members of the European Free Trade Association ".—[Mr. Gaitskell.]

Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.

3.37 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Not one speaker in this debate so far, I think, has failed to realise the momentous nature of the issue which we are discussing and deciding in this two-day debate. Even though we sometimes find him lacking in certain of the qualities which we consider essential to statesmanship, the Prime Minister does not possess in a large degree one quality which is essential, and that is a deep sense of history. I do not think that he will have missed the parallel between this decision which has now to be taken and that which faced Sir Robert Peel 115 years ago, though I think that,

for some of the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) stated, in the sphere of world politics the importance of this issue transcends even that of the Free Trade issue of 1846.
Our position has been stated by my right hon. Friend yesterday in his speech. We do not oppose the decision of the Government to embark on negotiations to ascertain the conditions on which Britain can join the European Economic Community, but we do utterly reserve our position on the decision which must be taken when the Government return to this House from the negotiations. We set out in our Amendment some of the conditions we regard as fundamental. Frankly, until we know what terms we can get, anyone who can claim to see this issue in simple black and white terms, in or out, is either a charlatan or a simpleton.
I regard it as my duty this afternoon to set out some of our anxieties particularly, but not exclusively, in the field of economics and trade, anxieties which, in our view, must be resolved if the final outcome is to be regarded as acceptable. Our Amendment refers without qualification and without apology to the fact that we shall be negotiating from a position of grave economic weakness. It is no good bucking this fact. It will profoundly affect the negotiations. Equally, without going over all the ground of the debates we have had in the last few weeks, the clear responsibility for this weakness lies with the Government who, in unprecedentedly favourable economic conditions, have created weakness out of great potential strength. To be on one's knees through the crippling blows which our economy has sustained and is sustaining is not the right Posture for negotiations which can decide our entire future.
The Prime Minister referred to the historical fact that over the centuries Britain has intervened in Europe at times of great crisis, and I think that that is true. He no doubt had in mind, in reviewing the centuries of the past, as other speakers have said, the actions of this country in the reign of Elizabeth I against Philip of Spain and the actions of Chatham and the younger Pitt, two centuries later,


but his sense of history sometimes leads him astray. In the reign of Elizabeth I our invisible exports were powerfully aided by the proceeds of piracy—State-supported piracy at that. Today, the pirates are satisfied to batten on the home market, again with State support. The older and the younger Pitt organised the great European coalitions with vast subventions from our national Treasury, but today we have to go cap in hand to the bankers of Europe for loans. So there is a difference this time.
In the economic debate, I warned the Government not to regard their decision about Europe as an exercise in economic escapism. We shall survive—inside or outside Europe—only as a result of our own efforts, our own ability to increase production and exports and to restrain costs. There is no escape and certainly no justification for escapism, but what a difference there would be if we were taking the decision not from weakness, but from the strength which should have been ours to command.
There has been great argument about the economic consequences of going into Europe or staying out—because the decision to stay out would have economic consequences no less profound than the decision to go in. I shall give my views. We already feel some of the effects. As I said in the Common Market debate a year ago, so far we feel them more in terms of a diversion of investment than in a diversion of trade. From the long-term point of view, I think that there is a strong case for saying that in terms of our own industry and our trade in Europe we may gain from being in Europe.
When British industry, which is, perhaps, a little more versatile and adaptable than sometimes appears, has made the changes necessary, we may, and I think that, on balance, we should, gain. But precisely because of our present weakness, I hope that the House will bear me if I do not spend so much time on the long-term economic position, but spend a little time on the short-term position which would result from a decision to go in now.
Yesterday, the Government announced a loss of £114 million from our gold reserves in July, almost the worst month ever recorded. It was more than 10 per cent of our total reserves gone in a

single mouth despite the special help we are getting from the European central banks. We also read the news of the humiliating necessity of having to borrow—we have not been told officially yet—£700 million from the International Monetary Fund. If that figure is correct it is only £200 million less than we had to borrow in 1946, a year after the war, when our export trade had not been rebuilt and we were still suffering from the shortages caused by the war. Now, sixteen years afterwards, if these figures are right, we are borrowing a sum only a little less than what we borrowed just after the war and which has provided a field of propaganda for hon. Members opposite for the last fifteen years.
The reason why I mention this and the amount of "hot" money which is pouring in because of the excessive Bank Rate is its relevance to whether we should go into the Common Market or not. I wonder what calculations the Government have made about the short-term effects on sterling if we go in. We can only guess. My view is that the short-term increase in exports will not be as great as the short-term increase in imports to this country. I hope that I am wrong.
In the economic debate, I said that British industry, at any rate in the short-term, is not very responsive to the cold draught of import competition which we hear so much about. If we look at the figures for 1958 to 1960, following the liberalisation of a great deal of our import trade, we find that our imports of manufactured goods from the Common Market countries have risen from a monthly average of £23½ million to £34·9, an increase of 49 per cent., while exports of the same kind of goods, Class D manufactures, rose from £27½ million to £34½ million, an increase of 25 per cent. This may be the pattern if we go in.
What of capital movements? Can anyone challenge the view that if British investments and speculators were free to invest in Europe there would be in the short term a massive withdrawal of funds from this country? As long as there is this grave weakness and this imminent fear of devaluation there will always be those, perhaps in high places, who may say that it is anti-British or derogatory to sterling but it makes sense to them.
The premium on the soft dollar, the only legal route into Europe in recent months, is one measure of the design. Even if there were no possibility of devaluation, the initial freedom to get into Belgian, French and German securities would mean a fairly big net outflow unbalanced by an equal inflow. Most of these countries have had considerable freedom to bank funds here.

Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: The fact is, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, that British investors are perfectly free, through the medium of the soft dollar, to invest in Europe. There is no reason to suppose that after this change they will invest more or less.

Mr. Wilson: The point about investing in soft dollars is that there is a likelihood that as it gets harder and harder there is a premium on the soft dollar, but I do not think that anyone would maintain that there is freedom of capital movement into Europe as there would be under the Treaty of Rome. Of course there is not. If there is, the Government had better look to its economic defences. On balance, I should judge—and I should like to know whether the Government agree—that there would be an immediate and dangerous outflow on current capital account which could quickly exhaust our £700 million loan.
Recently, in the economic debate the President of the Board of Trade stressed the special vulnerability of sterling because of our position as an international banker. He was right, of course. I wonder how the Government view the position of Britain as banker for the sterling area if we went into Europe. Could we still remain as banker for the sterling area? This is an important question, but we have had no guidance at all from the Government about it. The sterling area depends on sentiment as well as on hard cash. It could hardly survive otherwise.
If this sentiment is impaired, and countries such as Ghana or Malaya saw us turning to Europe and felt that it would be from Europe, not from Britain, that they would get more and more developmental capital, if they felt that the currencies of the countries which would be supplying them with capital

equipment—such as Germany—offered better long-term security than sterling, would there not be a rush to convert their sterling balances at present held in this country, at any rate sufficiently to break Britain's position as banker of the sterling area?
This is a very serious problem and I know that the House will take it seriously. I hope that we shall have a serious reply from the Government today. There we have the possible combined effects of a worsening trade balance for a year or two, an outflow of capital from Britain and the breaking up of our position as sterling area bankers—all this happening in the first year or two; it is a formidable prospect.
We are told that our capital problems are understood in Europe, that they are willing to waive or defer the operation of greater freedom of capital movement and that they would not be as quick as might be thought to rush into applying that part of the Treaty. I profoundly hope that there is this view in Europe and that it will be made a sticking point by the Government in the negotiations, otherwise none of us can be answerable for the consequences. So much for the short term.
I have referred to the long term. I believe that we could gain, but not on the basis of the degree of lethargy and sloth which is still characteristic of so much of British industry today. There is no more dangerous illusion than that laissez-faire and the cold east wind will do the trick. Positive, purposive, economic planning will be needed, as we have frequently and recently stated If I may adapt a phrase from our policy statement, "Signpost to the Sixties", if there is no fundamental change in our internal economic policies, what we are debating today is whether we shall be a backwater in Europe or a backwater outside Europe, and both are an equally dangerous position to occupy.
We see evidence that a number of the more progressive businessmen in the country want to go in. I think that that is true, especially some who are efficient and confident that once they are presented with a very big market they will be able to earn a great deal more foreign exchange and to sell more goods. But they are not representative of the entire community, and I do not think that hon.


Members can deny for one minute that there are some who are anxious to get in with one reason only—to have a wages showdown which they have not been able to have in the last four years.
It is five years since the Prime Minister, when Chancellor, announced his restrictive policy and in collusion, I think, with the the Chairman of the Engineering Employers' Federation had a showdown on engineering wages. That was in 1956. That, of course, failed and ever since attempts to have a wage freeze and a wage showdown have not succeeded. There are some people, I do not say on the Conservative benches, who resent that. One hears murmurings from time to time that we had better get into Europe so that we can have this showdown once and for all.
I do not want to identify myself with any particular industrial view on this, but I must, in fairness to the Government, right away give a pledge, While hon. Members on both sides of the House have their constituency responsibilities, I want to give a pledge which we gave over four years ago, when we first debated the original Free Trade Area proposals. We give a pledge that as a party, whatever decision we might take on the broad essential principles to go in or not to go in, we do not intend, whether we decide to go in the Common Market or not, to make common cause with protectionist industrial interests in this country. We will not make mischief about whatever decision is taken by allying ourselves with individual protectionist interests. I gave that pledge four years ago and I repeat it.
I have referred to the need for planning. I ask the Government: how far, under the Treaty of Rome as it is, could we undertake the degree of centralised economic management that we on this side of the House feel is needed? Hon. Members will form their own view. I say frankly to the House that as I read the Treaty of Rome, and the intentions of those who at present operate it, the measures necessary to fulfil the policies set out, for example, in "Signpost to the Sixties" cannot be implemented without substantial amendments to the relevant articles to the Treaty. That is my own personal view. This may not worry the Prime Minister very much. I think that that was shown by the levity with which he answered

questions put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) on Monday.
But if this is his attitude, do not let him talk, as he did on Monday, of this being an all-party operation. In these negotiations he is acting on behalf of the whole nation, including the 12 million who voted Labour and who voted for planning and purposive economic policies. Even the Prime Minister can claim to be Prime Minister for the whole nation and not just for the Conservative Party, or he would be representing a very small minority of the electorate at the present time. He is negotiating on behalf of those 12 million and millions more who would be voting for these policies if they had a chance of electoral expression today.
I hope that the Prime Minister accepts this responsibility. If he is negotiating simply the terms on which a Conservative laissez-faire Administration can enter the Common Market, if that is all he is doing, he will understand if we reserve our right here and now, clearly and unequivocally, to judge the final outcome of the negotiations on that criterion as well as on the other criteria which my right hon. Friend mentioned yesterday.
I hope that the Prime Minister will be careful to see how far even the minimal amount of planning which the Government do would be permitted under the Treaty of Rome—exchange controls, control over capital movements and the import controls which may one day have to be introduced, although we all hope not. Even Bank Rate, on which the Government rely, would be susceptible to challenge in the Commission or in the Council of Ministers under the Treaty of Rome.
I hope that the Prime Minister will not think me too hag-ridden by references to 1931 if I conjure up the possibility of a situation in which, perhaps, our exports do not increase as much as it is hoped and we go to Europe in a weak condition, needing economic assistance, and in which the central bankers of Europe tell us that we must change our financial, economic and perhaps social policies before they give the assistance. The bankers of 1961 might. might become a central bankers' ramp now. I do not think that this is entirely


imaginary. It is a possibility—just as much under a Conservative Government as under a Labour Government, and I hope that the Government are taking it seriously.
I intend to say little about agriculture. As far as I can judge—although I am not qualified to judge at all—though big changes would be inevitable, though some sectors such as horticulture and the production of individual commodities such as potatoes might suffer grave damage, in general, as far as it is legitimate for me to express an opinion I feel that the problem of agriculture is not insoluble—though I recognise that some of my hon. Friends with far greater knowledge of, and interest in, agriculture, take a different view.
Our present system of support prices and deficiency payments, at least on a national basis, would have to go. But I feel like my right hon. Friend, who said yesterday that when the obvious adjustments have been made it will be the housewife rather than the farmer and the farm worker who will be feeling the draught. I think that that is probably fair. The fundamental issue in the question of imports of food and agricultural products relates not to the British farmer, but to the Commonwealth, and to this subject, which is the central theme of our Amendment, I now turn.
During the debate some hon. Members on both sides of the House have accepted rather too easily the decline in recent years of our trade with the Commonwealth, as though it were something inevitable. Last night, the President of the Board of Trade took a slightly different view and was more hopeful, but he went so far as to explain the decline in recent years as being due to what he called historical reasons. He is flattering himself and his two predecessors when he uses that phrase "historical reasons. The cause, in the main, is the Government's ineptitude and their doctrinaire approach to certain problems which I shall describe.
Under the Labour Government trade with the Commonwealth as a percentage of our total trade was an all-time high, higher than ever before and certainly higher than it has been since. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite, scrapping bulk

buying and long-term agreements and bilateral arrangements, destroying, as they have, the sterling area as a trading entity—that is what they have done—bear the first responsibility for the decline of Commonwealth trade over the past ten years.
The second reason is the lack of enterprise and drive on the part of many of our manufacturers. Repeatedly in these debates I have given the figures of the imports of Commonwealth countries into the sterling area, showing how much of the increase which has taken place has been scooped by Japan, Germany and the United States, while our exports to those areas, through sheer lack of enterprise, have been falling.
It is no good Ministers standing at the Dispatch Box and complaining about the decline in Commonwealth trade and shrugging their shoulders, because they are very largely responsible for it. It is utterly defeatist to accept as inevitable the recent decline in Commonwealth trade. With the right priorities and drive, it could be sharply reversed. I make no apology for saying that in present circumstances the three Ministers who recently toured the Commonwealth should have been authorized—as Ernest Bevin, Stafford Cripps and I were authorised fourteen years ago—to propose a free trade area to the Commonwealth first, before taking the final decision about Europe. The offer might have been refused, as it was refused fourteen years ago, but at any rate it should have been tried. It has been suggested from these benches a number of times in the past few years.
Let us examine this problem of the Commonwealth and Europe. I would like to say how much I welcome the statements by prominent European statesmen that they recognise our obligation to the Commonwealth. M. Spaak said in the Belgian Assembly on 14th June, 1961—I have the text in French and this will be a somewhat limping translation:
If the Commonwealth is one of the essential facts of our time, I understand this perfectly clearly and no one would wish to face Great Britain with a choice between the Commonwealth and Europe. That is why it is necessary to find a technical solution which will enable us to make effective the maintenance of the Commonwealth and the adhesion of Great Britain to the Common Market.


It may not be a very good translation, but the idea is there. I very much welcome a statement of that kind from M. Spaak.
Now let us see what needs to be done to make those phrases a reality. The whole House will agree that there is not one Commonwealth problem, but at least three. First, I take it as inconceivable that Europe could fail to offer, or that the Government could fail to insist on getting, a protocol guaranteeing our dependencies and former dependencies, in Africa for example, the same terms as the former French territories are granted. That would be automatic. Kenya coffee and Ghana cocoa should not be prejudiced as compared with the products of Belgian or French territories, or former territories.
Secondly, there is the major problem of the products of temperate zone countries. This is very difficult. New Zealand, Australian and Canadian products face the likelihood of a 20 to 24 per cent. tariff compared with duty-free entry today.
That is the essence of the problem, but it is not the whole of the problem, because anyone reading the trading and economic clauses of the Treaty will realise the highly restrictive, even autarkic motivation of the Community. Non-discrimination within the area, yes, but a whole panoply of tariff quotas, import levies and other methods to supplement the tariff provisions, if, contrary to the intentions of the signatories, outside products come in on any scale.
All this suggests that there will be a very formidable series of weapons designed to limit the imports into Europe, and into Britain, of the products of many Commonwealth countries. Free trade within the area, yes, but vis-à-vis the outside world—let us be frank about it—this is a highly restrictive, discriminating trading bloc. We should have no illusions about it. It is the sort of bloc which, perhaps, the Conservatives can join and perhaps, with the right safeguards and assurances, the Labour Party could support joining, but why in heaven's name the Liberal Party supports it I find it extremely difficult to follow.
It will fairly be argued that the agricultural proposals are still to be agreed and that we can do more to influence from the

inside than we can from the outside looking in. It would be unrealistic, when talking of the influence we could exercise about Commonwealth imports over this panoply of tariff walls and the rest, to assume that on this issue Denmark and the Netherlands would necessarily be on our side. This is the most important of the matters for negotiation on the economic side.
We are told that the Commonwealth will not suffer. Last night, the President of the Board of Trade sought to console us—and, I suspect, to console himself—with the rather meaningless piece of fluff which he held out to us—
We must not get into the frame of mind of choosing between the Commonwealth and Europe. It would be tragic if this country were forced to make that choice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1961; Vol. 645, c. 1604.]
I would like to be certain that we are not to have to make that choice. I would like to be certain that the Government have not already made that choice in their own mind.
Let us strip the problem of all these fair words and get down to realities. I want to put this question, because the Government ought to put it in the negotiations. In, say, seven years from now, on the assumption of going in, do we expect to see as much Australian and Canadian wheat coming to Britain as today, or will it be wholly or substantially replaced by French wheat? The French make no secret of their aim to be the granary of Europe.
This question should be put, for it is the acid test of the words about the Commonwealth. Shall we have as much of those commodities coming into Britain seven years from now—or coming in to Europe seven years from now —as at present? Will there be the same amount of New Zealand meat, or will it be replaced by French production? New Zealand butter? This question must be put and answered, because it is the only criterion by which these fair words about the Commonwealth can be judged.
This question and the answer to it are vital for us, and many of our friends in Europe recognise that. I understand that some of them, same of the most powerful figures in Europe, are now privately talking of a five or seven-year contract for New Zealand butter and other Commonwealth commodities, just


as Germany concluded a seven-year agreement—secret agreement as it was then—with Denmark when the two parted company on the formation of the Common Market.
If measures on those lines could be taken, they would greatly assist the solution of the problem, at any rate for a time, and I hope that the Government will not be put off with words, but will ask the question which I have asked and will get a firm answer to it, and that, if the answer is not satisfactory and if some measures of that kind are not suggested, such as long-term purchase from New Zealand, they will come here and frankly tell the House.
There is one other equally fundamental question I would like to ask. We have not been told about this. Yesterday, the President of the Board of Trade referred to the position of the French territories as associate members, what the Prime Minister calls "country members". Do the Government intend to press for self-governing Commonwealth countries to be admitted on a basis of association with the Community. Is that suggestion being put forward?
Although Article 237 of the Treaty restricts full membership to European countries, Article 238 makes no such restriction and under the Treaty it would not be inappropriate for Commonwealth countries outside Europe to enter this obligation. Can we be told whether the Commonwealth countries told the ministerial visitors that they wanted to be associated with the Common Market in this way? I hope that we shall be given a clear answer to that tonight.
I turn to the third aspect of the Commonwealth problem, the problem of tropical agricultural products. What pledges have the Government given, or what are they willing to give, about the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement? That is a clear question and we must have an answer to it. This is one of the vital pillars in the structure of Commonwealth economic prosperity and the establishment of colonial economic prosperity after the war.
There was a great fuss in the Chamber, before the change of Government, about the "Black Pact" with Cuba, but at the same time as that was negotiated we had the Commonwealth

Sugar Agreement, which owed, and owes, a great deal to the statesmanship and negotiating ability of our right hon. Friend and former colleague in the House, Arthur Bottomley, whom we miss and whom the Commonwealth misses from this debate today, as he was largely responsible for that measure.
The Government have continued the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement in their peculiar manner—through free enterprise and operated through a monopoly with a levy and a subsidy and all the rest of the very clumsy and complicated Heath Robinson machinery, but at any rate in a form they have continued it. Will they give a pledge that they intend to maintain it after these negotiations with Europe are completed? Also, what do they intend about citrus fruits, on which the economies of important Colonial Territories depend?
We are entitled to know, because it really is nonsense for the Prime Minister to talk about a holy war against Communism. He did not quite use that phrase, but it was sticking out from a lot of what he said yesterday. It is nonsense for him to talk in those terms if he is wantonly embarking on a course which by undermining, for example, the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and the citrus fruits arrangements will knock out the props which underpin the prosperity of struggling colonial economies.
I have stated these Commonwealth problems in terms of hard economic facts, but I should be the last to disagree with those hon. Members on both sides of the House who put the problem in yesterday's debate in terms more of sentiment, kinship and bonds of a less materialistic character than those that I have been describing.
The public Press has inevitably been filled with countless articles and letters for months past about all these problems, but for me—and, I think, for many others—the most pointed and moving of all of them was the letter written to the Guardian by my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), about three weeks ago. My right hon. Friend was Secretary for Overseas Trade immediately after the war. I followed him in that capacity, and I know the kind of problems with which he was dealing. In the letter he referred


to the difficult negotiations this country had in the immediate post-war years when we sought to get the food and raw materials that we needed with very little to offer in terms of the steel, chemicals and engineering goods that other countries so desperate needed and that we could ill-afford.
My right hon. Friend wrote:
Then one day I sat down with the New Zealand delegation. I expected a bargaining session as difficult as any other. Instead, the leader of the New Zealand delegation"—
a very good friend of this country's, Walter Nash—
opened the proceedings in words I shall never forget. 'We have not come to ask you "What can you give?" but simply "What do you need?" When you stood alone you preserved our freedom for us. Now tell us what butter, what neat, what grains you need, and—whatever the sacrifice may be for the New Zealand people—we will supply it.'

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Wilson: I submit to the House that we cannot consistently with the honour of this country take any action now that would betray friends such as those. All this and Europe, too—if you can get it. The President of the Board of Trade last night seemed to think that we can. I hope that he is right, but if there has to be a choice we are not entitled to sell our friends and kinsmen down the river for a problematical and marginal advantage in selling washing machines in Dusseldorf.
Before I leave the economic aspects of the problem—I do not want to go on for more than a few minutes more—there are two other questions that I want to raise. The first is East-West trade. The Common Market, whether we are inside or outside, is restrictive in intent. We all know that Eastern Europe, too, has its common market, a tighter and still more restrictive bloc than anything we are thinking about. All the same, if joining the Common Market means a reduced ability to trade with the Soviet Union or other Eastern European countries, or China, I submit that this will be detrimental to our economic welfare and to the prospects of full employment —and it will make real peace more remote.
So, when the Prime Minister talks in terms of a political grouping against the Communist threat, when I recall the way Dr. Adenauer last year forbade us to

trade with East Germany while his own businessmen flocked across the frontier to filch our orders, I must admit that I am apprehensive about East-West trade relations. I therefore trust that the Government will tell us that they will seek assurances on this question.
The other question relates to the Coal and Steel Community and Euratom. This is a problem which was dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) last night in a speech which drew, I think, a great deal of support from both sides of the House. Presumably it is intended that we should join both these bodies as well as the Common Market, though little has been said from the Government Front Bench about either of them. We ought to he told a lot more about it.
Hon. Friends of mine have made it clear that there is great anxiety in the coalfields about joining the E.C.S.C., probably far more than there is about our joining the Common Market. I am bound to ask: what safeguards would we have, if we are to go in, that British coal will not be sacrificed to the special discriminations which will be introduced in favour of Saharan oil? That is a problem—subsidised pipelines, and all the rest of it. We know that there will be competition between British and European coal. That is a problem which has to be faced in one way or another, but now we shall be up against subsidised Saharan oil. This raises some very fundamental questions on which I hope we shall get an answer tonight.
Also on the broader question, we should like much more specific assurances than the Treaty gives against the growth of private or even Government-supported cartels in Europe. Some Continental industries take to cartelistic activities like ducks to water, and there are some British businessmen who would be only too anxious to get in on that kind of organisation. I hope that this is very much in the minds of the Government.
Before I sit down I should like to turn briefly to one or two of the wider issues which have been raised in the debate, because it is clear that, for the Prime Minister at any rate, the motive is not economic but political. I think that was clear from his speech. Important


as the economic issues, of course, are, and the Commonwealth issues with which I have been dealing, I think that our expectations or fears about the political aspects are even more fundamental.
First, I should like to take issue straight away with some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, sitting below the Gangway opposite, who quite simply regard it as an issue of sovereignty. I respect their arguments, but they—and even the word itself, I think—are really out of harmony with this modern age. The whole history of political progress is a history of gradual abandonment of national sovereignty. We abrogate it when we have a French referee at Twickenham. We abrogated it—some would say that we did not abrogate it enough—when we joined the United Nations. One cannot talk about world government in one breath and then start drooling about the need to preserve national sovereignty in the next.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: rose—

Mr. Wilson: I will give way when I have finished this. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait a moment. All of us have the difficult task of trying, as far as we can, to speak for Britain, but not all of us can speak on behalf of some of the Ancient Britons who sit on the benches opposite.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am hardly one of them. Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wilson: In a moment. I may satisfy the hon. Gentleman in what I am about to say.
The question is not whether sovereignty remains absolute or not, but in what way one is prepared to sacrifice sovereignty, to whom and for what purpose. That is the real issue before us. The question is whether any proposed surrender of sovereignty will advance or retard our progress to the kind of world we all want to see.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I do not want to intervene on behalf of ancient Britons, nor about nineteenth century Liberal ideas on supra-nationality or world government.

But what about the new Britons spread around the world What about the modern Commonwealth, whose common principle is national sovereignty?

Mr. Wilson: I have been discussing the economic problems of the Commonwealth countries. In a moment I hope to say a word or two about the political aspects and importance of these new countries. What I am objecting to is the old-world style of talking of national sovereignty when really we should be dealing with much more fundamental issues in this debate.
Equally, I do not join with those extremists who have been trying to estimate what Britain will become if we do or do not join the Common Market. Stay out, some say, and we shall be powerless and become another Sweden or Portugal. Go in, say the others, and we shall become another Idaho. But I think that these arguments grossly understate the position and rôle of what Britain is and what Britain could be under the right kind of leadership. The vital issue in the political sense is whether to join the Common Market explicitly or implicitly means a move towards a federal Europe. There is nothing in the Treaty of Rome enjoining federalism, although there is a great deal of supranationalism.
But we are right to be concerned about the express intentions of many leading figures in the Six. Yesterday, the Prime Minister quoted President de Gaulle concerning the confederation des patries. We all welcomed that phrase when it was used by the French President, but there are the cautious, but far from meaningless, words of Dr. Adenauer who said that political unity remained the common aim of the Common Market countries, but that he favoured a pragmatic rather than a theoretical approval. One day, he said; it would be found that European unity had been reached. On 8th February the Guardian reported him as aiming at a federation
with one Prime Minister and a unified policy towards the rest of the world".
Monsieur Spaak, on 14th June, made a statement and Professor Hallstein has said many times that the final aim is the integration of Europe. On 22nd May, Professor Hallstein said:
We are not in business to promote tariff preferences, or to establish a discriminatory


club to form a larger unit to make us richer, or a trading block to further our commercial interests. We are not in business at all. We are in politics.
In view of these statements and others —and it is for us to select which of these various statements we should accept as correct—it is a little myopic of the Prime Minister to refer to it as
…a purely economic and trading negotiation and not a political and foreign policy negotiation".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st July, 1961; Vol. 645, c. 937.]
But, all the same, we warmly welcome his statement of yesterday associating himself with President de Gaulle's approach and I repeat the declaration of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, when he said:
…there is no question whatever of Britain entering into a federal Europe now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1961; Vol. 645, c. 1501–2.]
I hope that the Government will be clear about this. There should be no doubt on this federal issue. There should be no double talk with Europe about it. Our position should be stated so that there is no accusation of bad faith, of dragging our feet, of perfidious Albion, if, subsequently, Europe seeks to move towards federation and then, and only then, we make clear our opposition to it. Whatever view may be taken concerning these economic negotiations, I hope that we make it clear that we shall not go into a federal system.
I very much welcomed the Prime Minister's condemnation of what the right hon. Gentleman called "little Europeans." We must be outward looking. The Prime Minister is right. This is an issue on which every hon. Member must make up his mind. We have a rôle to play in the world, perhaps a decisive rôle, at some historic moment; in building a bridge between East and West—between America and Russia, perhaps America and China, and we must search our hearts and ask whether going in, or not going in, will best help in that rôle.
It is no secret that the United States Government feel that Britain must retire from the task of organising summits. They have told the Prime Minister that. They consider our rôle to be in Europe. I would not deny that that is an important rôle. No one who recalls that the two world wars have begun on the Franco-German frontier will underestimate it.

If that is the rôle that the Prime Minister has chosen, can we, playing a leading part in Europe, fulfil the rôle of bridge builders in the second half of the twentieth century?
I have referred to the position of the American Government and I understand that it is the firm view of the United States that negotiations aimed at a modification of the Rome Treaty would appear unacceptable to them and that they would be opposed to such a step. Protocols yes, but a redrafting of the Rome Treaty—and I understand that this is being said in Washington officially now—would be ruled out as far as they are concerned. I realise that they are not in the negotiations, but they have a veto in G.A.T.T. It is, therefore, extremely important that we should understand what the position will be.
But what of our rôle in the Commonwealth, particularly the newly emerging Commonwealth in Asia and Africa, where our partners will be, and already are being, called upon to play a leading part in Afro-Asian and United Nations politics? These are the questions—the ultimate decisions—which will be as momentous as any in our history.
I repeat, we do not oppose the negotiations, but on the Government's success in meeting the economic and political anxieties which my right hon. Friend and I have expressed—and we wish the Government well in the negotiations—we utterly reserve our position about the package that the Government will bring back. On the Government's success in this will depend not only our decision on joining Europe but, I believe, the future standing and influence of this country in making its decisive and unique contribution to the peace of the world.

4.25 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. Wilson) ended his speech as he began, by reserving his position as to the decision which he and his right hon. and hon. Friends will take as a result of these negotiations. That, of course, is the position which the whole House is in.
The House is being asked to reserve its position until the end of the negotiations before making a final decision about it. At the same time, it is asked


to authorise Her Majesty's Government to enter into negotiations on the basis which we have stated. The right hon. Gentleman went so far as to wish us well in these negotiations and I am grateful to him for his good wishes. But that raises at once the question whether, in view of his good wishes and his own view—which he expressed as long ago as July last year, and which he reiterated today—that it is in the long-term interests of this country to have these arrangements, he should not have supported the Motion, rather than merely taking no part and abstaining or voting on his own Amendment against it.
However, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his good wishes. In his speech he raised a large number of very important points and I am glad that he did so. They are, in fact—many of them—the points on which the negotiations will turn. They are, in fact, the crux of the whole matter; the things about which we shall seek to find arrangements. He will, therefore, not expect me now to say, about many of them, exactly what proposals will be put forward in respect of each of the questions he posed. It is valuable that the right hon. Gentleman should have posed them, but I am sure that he will agree that it would be wrong for me to state any decision on some of those matters at present. I hope, however, that I shall be able to deal with some of the points that he raised.
The right hon. Gentleman showed his own sense of history at the beginning of his speech and I think that he was, in many ways, correct. From my point of view, the history is that the first Lord Privy Seal took office in 1275 and, at that time, the lands of Gascony and a considerable part of the Continent came under the British Crown, so that the then Lord Privy Seal was not faced with the problem of how to get a foot in Europe because he had a very substantial foot there already. But we are now faced with the problem of how to reach an arrangement.
About one matter which the right hon. Gentleman raised—his statements about the attitude of the United States—I must say that it is, of course, completely untrue that the President of the United States, or any members of that Adminis-

tration, have said what the right hon. Gentleman said as far as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and as far as the foreign policy of this country is concerned. It is completely untrue and quite unjustifiable for the right hon. Gentleman to have said it.
The position of the United States is perfectly clear in this matter: that in various forms of economic arrangements which would be possible in Europe there could be economic discrimination against the United States—in fact, in almost all of them. The view of the United States is that if they can see a strengthening of the political unity of Europe it is justified from this point of view in accepting that degree of discrimination. That is the position and it it quite clear.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in opening the debate yesterday, asked why it was considered in Europe and in many other places that in making an application under Article 237 for negotiations this should be a matter of decisive importance. The reason is that Europe recognises—as do most other countries—that if the negotiations were successful and we could secure an arrangement which we are seeking, we should at the same time be undertaking obligations under the Treaty of Rome.
It was, therefore, absolutely right that many speakers in the debate yesterday, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), in a speech which, if I may say so, was powerful and beautifully phrased, dealt with this question of the obligations under the Treaty of Rome and, in particular, with the politico-economic interactions under that Treaty. It is with that part of this complex matter that I wish to deal in the first part of my speech this afternoon, because I believe that it is of very great importance.
The three Communities are fundamentally economic Communities, as has often been emphasised—the Coal and Steel Community, Euratom and the Economic Community. At the same time—and I think that this is the first political aspect—they were formed with one primary political purpose, which was, through the economic arrangements, so to bind together France and


Germany that they could not again come into open conflict. That was a simple political purpose which we recognise and which we have welcomed. It was because that fundamental political purpose lay behind it that the first Community was the Coal and Steel Community, dealing with the basic industries in those countries.
Perhaps I may here say to the right hon. Member for Huyton in answer to the question which he raised—namely, what is the view of Her Majesty's Government?—which I also explained at the meeting of W.E.U. Ministers on Tuesday, that, if it is required, at the appropriate moment we are prepared to enter into negotiations about accession to the other two Communities, Coal and Steel and Euratom. But, of course, it must be realised that the Communities themselves are in the process of considering what their future organisation should be, and they themselves, therefore, are not clear at this moment how they are to develop.
Looking at the three Communities, the economic purpose is plain. It is to create a Common Market with common purposes and it is, therefore, necessary to have common institutions in order to avoid unfairness in the operations of these Communities. But if that aspect is clear, then I think that the political aspect needs elucidation.
It has always seemed to me that there is confusion between the three different political aspects of the Communities and their work. The first is what I much prefer to call the institutional; it has the machinery necessary for dealing with the economic aspects of the Community and it involves sovereignty. The second aspect is that of political consultation among the Members of the Communities about European affairs, world affairs and the interactions of the two. That aspect does not involve sovereignty—it is consultation between the countries concerned—but it is a most important political aspect of all the actions of the Communities.
The third political aspect is the longterm future as to whether these economic and consultational aspects—I apologise to hon. Members; I shuddered myself at the word—of the economics and consultation between the Communities are to lead to a further constitutional development along the lines of federalism or con-

federalism, or in some other sphere. Here again, sovereignty could be involved.
It seems to me to be important to separate those three different aspects of the political relationships of the Communities. I should like, first, to say something about the institutional aspect and its relevance to sovereignty, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton) and some of his right hon. and hon. Friends have put down on the Order Paper an addendum dealing with this matter. The Communities are, in fact, an example of a partnership in action with common policies. It is a common operation, a common commercial policy and a common agricultural policy. It is not a common fiscal policy or a common financial policy. This deals in part with the right hon. Gentleman's questions this afternoon.
From the point of view of sovereignty, although we have heard very often in the last 24 hours about surrendering sovereignty, it seems to me that it is a conception much more of pooling sovereignty with others who are occupied in the same joint enterprise. Surrender means the abandonment of sovereignty to others. Pooling seems to me to share sovereignty with other people for a common purpose, and there seems to me to be a firm distinction between those two. It is a pooling of sovereignty over a strictly defined field, and that is laid down in the Treaty itself.
I need not go over the scope of Articles 2 and 3, because they will be well known to hon. Members, but it is clearly defined there what is the scope of this pooling of sovereignty. There are, of course, various degrees of pooling. Until the end of the transitional periods there has to be a unanimous vote, and there is, therefore, a veto. To that extent one can say that sovereignty has not been pooled. After that, there is the question of the weighted majority.
The Leader of the Opposition asked yesterday about the reorganisation of the weighted majority voting during these negotiations if we are to become members. That is, of course, a matter for negotiation, but I must say that I see no reason to visualise the sort of situation which he mentioned, which is that in the existing situation one great Power and one small Power, under the weighted majority, would be able to veto a


proposition, but that if we became members with Denmark we would not have a comparable position to other Powers in the community. I see no reason at all to support the apprehensions which he expressed.
The right hon. Gentleman, at the same time, asked about the responsibility of the Commission and said that it was responsible to the Assembly. It is responsible to the Assembly in this degree, that by a two-thirds majority of the Assembly the Commission can be called upon to resign, but of course, from the point of view of policy—the whole policy of the Communities—the Commission puts forward proposals, and it is the Council of Ministers which decides whether those policies are to be implemented or not. So it is the case that the Commission proposes and the Ministers dispose. I hope, therefore, that I have answered the point which the Leader of the Opposition raised yesterday about the independence of the Commission. Although it has certain functions clearly laid down to supervise arrangements which are carried on, it is responsible to the Council of Ministers as far as policy making is concerned.
The other point raised by the right hon. Gentleman was whether the Assembly is to be directly elected or not. That is a recommendation from the Assembly. If we are to take part in this, we shall have to discuss it with the other members of the Six and we would not be expected to express views about the policy at the moment. But I do not believe that whether or not the Assembly is to be directly elected is a fundamental matter at this time, because the capacity of the Assembly is only advisory, and therefore, whether it is directly elected or is elected in an alternative way is not a fundamental question at the moment. The alternative way could, presumably, be that hon. Members would be selected by the Whips. It is entirely up to them. I hope that I have now secured complete support for the electoral processes.
On this question of the pooling of sovereignty, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, and on which the right hon. Gentleman for Huyton commented today, in a number of other spheres sovereignty has been pooled for the benefit of the general policy

to be followed by a number of countries, and I am not required to go into that. In the case of N.A.T.O. we have committed ourselves to the fact that an attack on one country is an attack on all. In Western European Union we have committed ourselves for fifty years to keep troops in Europe. In G.A.T.T. we have accepted other certain limited obligations. I do not want to go into this in detail, except to say that this is another example of pooling of sovereignty, although it has particular characteristics in that it is over the commercial and economic field.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East raised a question about municipal law, approximating it, and so forth. We do this in other organisations. In the I.L.O., for instance, if we accept a convention we approximate our law in order to carry it out. There is nothing unusual in it. It springs from the original fact that we shall be in a joint purpose together in which we are carrying out the same operations. But the approximation is necessary only in so far as it is for the functioning of the Common Market, and there is, therefore, another specific limitation on that.
We have examined the general group of miscellaneous provisions under Article 3 with great care. We find that in a large number of cases there will be no difficulty because they correspond to the obligations we are already carrying out. In others it will be a matter for negotiation and, if necessary, seeing that we exert our influence in the administrative working out of policies with other members of the group.

Mr. William Warbey: Is the right hon. Gentleman proposing, on this very important subject of political institutions, to say nothing about the declaration issued by the six heads of Government of the Common Market countries in Bonn only two weeks ago, on 18th July, a declaration which was more than a declaration, it being really a confederal political act? I do not wish to take too long, so I will summarise it. The six heads of Government decided to instruct their Commission—I ask the House to note the wording—to present to them proposals for giving as soon as possible a statutory character to the union of their people.
Will the right hon. Gentleman go into the negotiations repudiating that declaration or accepting it as the basis of negotiations?

Mr. Heath: I intend to deal with that a little later in the part of my speech devoted to the three political factors, because that is not one of the institutional factors concerned with the economic side of the Communities.
The second aspect is political consultation. This springs from the Six, but, as I have said, there are no questions of sovereignty involved. It is consultation between Foreign Ministers at regular intervals and between the heads of Government at regular intervals. It is growing. It will continue. It is to be organised. It deals with European problems and their effect on world problems. In this, which does not affect sovereignty, we should consider that we could play a full part because we believe that it is necessary in this consultation that our views should be known. Otherwise, if it develops, we may see decisions which would affect us being taken without our interests being fully considered.
I do not believe that it can in any way impede consultation with the Commonwealth. Exactly the reverse would be true. Our consultations with the Commonwealth would be strengthened by our close consultations with members of the Six on a political level and, similarly, we should be able to express views to the Six themselves after our experience with the Commonwealth. This we have already discovered in our experience with W.E.U. consultation.
I turn now to the third aspect of political relations with the Communities. What is the position in regard to the future. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) has just referred to the Bonn communiqué. Will it lead to some other form of organisation? In the Treaty of Rome itself, there is no commitment either explicit or implicit leading to any particular form of constitutional development above the Rome Treaty itself. That is quite clear. It speaks in the Preamble of an ever closer union and it is quite true that that union is coming about through the economic arrangements of the Communities. We see the new organisations working closely together and Ministers working

closely together, but there is no commitment in it.
That, I think, deals with the second part of the Amendment put down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton and others of my right hon. and hon. Friends relating to any
implied undertaking to proceed to political union or federation … in any way inconsistent with the continuance by the United Kingdom of its traditional rôle …".
There is nothing implied, and there has been nothing undertaken by Her Majesty's Government in any of the talks we have carried on so far.
No one can foresee the future. If hon. Members have been able to discuss with people within the Six what was to happen as a result of this work, he will, of course, have found that there are widely divergent views among the countries of the Six about how it will develop and to what extent there will be any agreement about the future. Of course, the political consultation is being formalised and an organisation is being created for it gradually, but this, again, is a matter in regard to which no one can fortell the future.
If we were to go into it, there would be no obligation on us to accept any particular view. Naturally, we should then be able to use our influence in any developments of that kind which took place. The important thing is that none of this can happen unless there is either an extension of the Treaty of Rome, with additional Articles added to it, or there is a new Treaty. Both these things have to be done by unanimous consent.
Our position, therefore, is quite plain. I agree wholeheartedly with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East that there must be no misunderstanding whatever about it between the United Kingdom and the members of the Six. Our position is plain, as is the position of member countries already in the Six or any country which accedes to the Six. The original members of the Six undertook no obligations, and the position of any newcomers to the Six is exactly the same. They can play their part in working out any developments, but the final conclusion needs to have unanimous consent either in the form of Articles additional to the Treaty or in a new Treaty itself. I hope that that has made the position absolutely plain.

Mr. Warbey: Will the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Heath: No. I am sorry. I cannot give way again. I propose to deal in some detail with this matter, because I believe that it is of great importance of the minds of very many hon. Members of the House.
On the question of pooling of sovereignty for the economic arrangements, my right hon. and hon. Friends, in their Amendment, ask that there shall be no
material derogation of British sovereignty".
They are quite right to draw attention to this matter. We have to ask ourselves: how is a material derogation to be defined? What exactly is meant by a material derogation? It is up to my right hon. and hon. Friends and all hon. Members to decide for themselves what they mean by material derogation, but no one will, in fact, be able to decide until we reach the end of the negotiations. That is a decision which one can take only when we can look again at the undertakings which we should have been required to give and at the machinery which would then be in the state it had reached after our negotiations.
What one can deduce from the Amendment is that my right hon. and hon. Friends are not absolutist about sovereignty. It is clear from the wording of the Amendment that they are prepared to see some contribution of sovereignty for these purposes. They are not absolutist in saying that there must be no contribution. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is absolutist. Others are not; they are prepared to make some contribution. The question then is: how much should that contribution be?
I suggest to the House that the only way to form a conclusion on this question is to ask whether the contribution is worth while for the common purposes which we have in mind. This leads to the question: is it worth while to achieve a greater unity in Europe, and is it worth while for the economic future of this country and all that depends upon it? I suggest that those are the two criteria by which one judges whether it

is a material derogation of sovereignty and whether it is worth while.
In his opening remarks, my right hon. and learned Friend said—this was a place where I disagreed with him—that the need for unity in Western Europe had reeve; been put forward as one of the reasons for undertaking these negotiations. I must differ from him about that. During the past year, both in public and to the members of the Six, we have always emphasised how much we regretted the economic split between the members of E.F.T.A. and the members of the Community and how our great anxiety was that this economic split would lead to a political division which would weaken Europe.
It is true that so much of the energy of Europe has been taken up during the past few years in organising the two groups and in trying to find a solution to the differences between them that Europe must have suffered already in that way. Therefore, we have always emphasised that the need to secure unity in Western Europe is one of our prime purposes in what we are doing. Therefore, that must be one of the criteria as to whether the material contribution is justified or not.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: The point I was making at that stage was that it was not put forward as indispensably necessary for the defence of the free world against Communism. If it had been so necessary, then presumably we should have signed the Treaty of Rome in 1957.

Mr. Heath: Obviously, the matter is bound to be one of comparison. We have been trying since 1957 to get an arrangement which would prevent this rift. It is only since we failed to get a Free Trade Area or a European Free Trade Association that the rift has become more apparent. Therefore, it is a contribution towards the unity of the West.
The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) said that this proposal was dividing Europe. I cannot believe that. I know that the hon. Lady sincerely holds that view. In fact, Europe is divided by the Iron Curtain. It will be divided a second time unless we find


a solution to this problem. It is to prevent this second division that we are taking this step. One might also recall that, if the Soviet Union had accepted the invitation to take part in the original negotiations about the formation of the O.E.E.C. and had not dragged Czechoslovakia back from taking part in them the whole future of Europe might have been very different today.
The other criterion is our own economic interest. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East and the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) referred to this yesterday. They said that we had not received a specific balance sheet. I think that the right hon. Member for Huyton would agree that it is not possible to set out a specific balance sheet on each industry in this country, which is what the right hon. Gentleman suggested if we are to take these steps.
One has to look at the broad general advantage, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, over the long term, of allowing British industry not to be at a disadvantage with its competitors in Europe by having a small market and a common tariff wall against it and fierce competition in the third markets of the world. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the importance of the change in the pattern of investment which has come about since the creation of the Six. These are economic things of importance.
Of course, the Government's decision will mean changes. Some people will have to adapt themselves, or they will suffer defeat. That is absolutely true. But we cannot maintain a static position, as the hon. Member for Leicester, North-East seemed to suggest—

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: I do not suggest that we should maintain a static position. I suggest that in the dynamic developments to which the Lord Privy Seal referred there should be an indication of the eventual balance of loss and gain to particular industries in this country. The right hon. Gentleman must have envisaged what that might be, and those industries are entitled to know the calculation which has been made.

Mr. Heath: It is not only the job of, but it also lies within the power of, those industries to work it out for themselves. Most of them have done it. The great majority have come to the conclusion that they want the advantages of a broad market in Europe so that they can all compete on equal terms.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Which ones will suffer?

Mr. Heath: Some industries have indicated that they fear competition, but the great majority of them wish to have the spur of this additional market.
In considering this criterion of the contribution of sovereignty, we must ask ourselves: could this be done in another way? We have had suggestions from right hon. and hon. Members about how it could be done in another way, and I wish to deal briefly with them.
The first concerns additional activity to inspire Commonwealth trade. Of course, we are fully in support of that. There can be no division between the two sides of the House about it. What is perhaps in doubt in hon. Members' minds is the extent to which that will produce an increase in trade. Let there be no difference about the desirability of doing our utmost to ensure that.
The second suggestion was that there could be a purely economic arrangement between two groups—the Community and E.F.T.A. This would avoid the apprenhensions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East and others about sovereignty. We examined this carefully in the confidential talks that we had over the past year. It became apparent in the spring that it was not possible to secure an arrangement between two separate economic groups. I am afraid that that was the conclusion to which we came. It was obviously based on evidence that the Community is not prepared to enter into an agreement between two groups of that kind, and their reason for that is understandable, namely, that they fear the undermining and debilitation of the Community. That is one of the facts which we have to face.
The third suggested solution was that the Community as a whole should become a member of E.F.T.A. That,


too, would have avoided many problems. In many ways, it would have been, as my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will, I am sure, agree, the simplest, cleanest and easiest solution to the trade problems, but that, too, was unacceptable. It therefore had to be rejected as a possible way of dealing with this problem.
The fourth suggestion was that we should apply under Article 238 of the Treaty of Rome for association rather than under Article 237. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East, at the end of his speech, raised considerable doubt about various aspects of the Community and the Treaty. He said that his advice to the Government was to wish the Community well and to seek application for association under Article 238. I wish to deal with that in some detail.
If my right hon. and learned Friend wants association under Article 238, he is presumably of the opinion that an economic association with the Community is worth while, and that the other matters which we have been discussing—the long-term and short-term interests—justify an economic association with the Community. He would not have suggested it otherwise. This is one of the things which raises the deepest suspicions of everyone in Europe. It has been one of the major factors in relations between the United Kingdom and Europe for the past four years.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will not mind my saying this, but that is simply the belief that we want all the advantages of the developments in Europe without undertaking any of the obligations of the other members of the Community. It is that belief which has caused considerable difficulty in our relations with Europe.

Mr. George Brown: That is the fault of the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Heath: My right hon. Friend is in no way responsible.
I therefore suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East that we must look at the matter from that point of view, also. Technically, it is open to us to

make application for association in this way. Each association agreement has to be negotiated separately. To be within G.A.T.T., it has to be either a Free Trade Area or a Customs union. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade tried, with all his energies, to get a Free Trade Area. It was impossible.
Therefore, any association agreement would have to be part of a Customs union, although one might be able to get exemption for specific articles, as Greece has done in its own association treaty. Exactly the same problems would face us in trying to arrive at a Commonwealth or E.F.T.A. arrangement with a common tariff and Customs union through association as it does through membership. Therefore, there would be no advantage in applying for association from that point of view.
As it would be a Customs union, there would be a common tariff. But as ant associate member, we should not have representation in the organs which decided that common tariff. Therefore, we should be giving up our sovereignty for a common tariff but we should not have a say in how it was fixed. To that extent, our position vis-à-vis sovereignty would be worse than if we were a member fixing these things and had our full share as to how they were arranged.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Where does my right hon. Friend find in Article 238 anything, either expressed or implied, as to the creation of a common external tariff? In addition, if there are deep suspicions about an association, why is Article 238 in the Treaty and why was my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade trying to get such an association for all this time?

Mr. Heath: The answer to the first point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend is that it has to be a Customs union or a Free Trade Area under the G.A.T.T. That is unavoidable. That is why there are only two courses. It was created by the Community to suit, first, the small countries, and, secondly, the underdeveloped countries in Europe.
There are two of those countries. One has just succeeded in completing the negotiations, and the other one is carrying them through at the moment. We hope that this can also be used for some


neutral countries in Europe which, though admittedly small are highly industrialised, and we hope that in the negotiations it will be possible for them to be fitted into the association, if they so wish, and are prepared, as I hope, under Article 238 for association.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I am interested in the first of the right hon. Gentleman's three objections to application under Article 238, and I apprehend that he, too, thinks that this is the most important of the three. What he said was that it aroused so much suspicion among possible future partners that they felt that we were trying to get all the advantages and exempt ourselves from paying the necessary price in the consequent disadvantages. I understand that, but what are the negotiations to be about which he is asking the authority of the House to conduct, unless they are to produce that result?

Mr. Heath: The negotiations themselves, and I will say more about them in a few minutes, are to reconcile the different interests which exist at the moment in the Community and in those countries which are asking to accede to it. That is the normal form of negotiations. The other point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend was why we tried to get a free trade area with the Community. It was an attempt with other countries on a basis which we thought at that time was perfectly justifiable. That was was in perfectly good faith. The view now taken by the Six is that a great industrial country of 50 million people like ours should not seek to obtain the advantages of association without at the same time undertaking the common obligations.
The last point is that, with a form of association, we do not have the same influence over general policy. In fact, we have very little, and no influence at all over political consultation.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does not all this show that G.A.T.T., as it stands, is the enemy of European unity, just as it has proved the enemy of Commonwealth development? Should we not, therefore, tackle G.A.T.T. in this connection and try to get it revised?

Mr. Heath: I know the views of my hon. Friend on G.A.T.T. Whatever our

views about G.A.T.T., it is certainly the view of the Community with which we have to deal, but there are two possible ways of dealing with it. I have been into this in some detail, and I hope my right hon. Friends will realise why we have come to the conclusion we did about application under Article 237 and about the nature of the obligations which we are undertaking. I hope they will feel justified in waiting to see what the material derogation of sovereignty, to which they referred, amounts to, and to what extent we can succeed in our other purposes, both economic, for this country, and political, from the point of view of Western Europe as a whole, before they then make the final decision as to whether the contribution of sovereignty is material, in their view, and as to what its consequences are.
Now I wish to say a few words about the negotiations. Some hon. Members have asked what has been going on over the past year in the talks which we have had. I do not want to go over it in detail, but three things have happened which are important. The first is that I believe that now there is confidence between the countries of the Six and the countries of the Seven about the future, and I believe that that is very important in trying to get an arrangement between them. The suspicions have been removed, and there is now faith in the future in trying to get an agreement. Secondly, I believe that we have been able to create a greater understanding of each other's problems, and, in particular, an understanding of the Commonwealth, its nature, the importance of its trade, the extent to which some countries are dependent on their trade with us, and also on its political nature and its value to the world. I believe that there is a much greater understanding of that among the countries of Europe.
Thirdly, we have explored different ways by which technical problems can be settled. We have not found all the answers. We cannot decide which are the most suitable, which is what the right hon. Gentleman asked me about, until we get into the business of negotiation, and that is why we have now reached the stage where we shall enter negotiations and where countries can see what the firm arrangements would be.
On the question of timing, there is great interest in this, and my right hon. and learned Friend said "Do not rush it." I think it is now eleven years since we first debated in this House the question of the Schuman Plan, and at that time the party opposite stood aside. My noble Friend the Earl of Avon, Mr. Eden as he then was, proposed an Amendment to the Government Motion, on which we on this side of the House urged that we should take part in discussions on the Schuman Plan on the first initiation, and that was defeated by hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite, who stood aside then, and who are standing aside today.
From the point of view of the negotiations, at the moment, there is another reason why we should take these steps now. The communities are in a formative period in four ways. First, the common agricultural policy is about to be worked out. Secondly, discussions on the status of the overseas territories and their problems are also about to begin. Here I agree entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the importance of many of our own territories, dependent and independent, being able to come in, if they so wish, as many of them do, with new arrangements for territories in this position. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend entirely on the importance of that. Thirdly, the details of social policy are about to be worked out—the miscellaneous provisions under Article 3 of the Treaty. Fourthly, the formation of the machinery for political consultation. These are four powerful reasons why we should take an initiative at this time.
So far as the date of the actual negotiations is concerned, I gained the impression from my discussions at the Western European Union meeting on Tuesday, that it was quite possible that they could start about the first week in October, and that by that time the countries will have been able to make the initial preparations for so doing. That is not a hard and fast date, but the impression that I got as to when they might be able to begin. They will be complicated and will take some time. The Government's decision was warmly welcomed by the members of the Six in W.E.U. and, in the communiqué they

published, indicated that they wished to start the negotiations as soon as possible, to carry them out with a spirit of goodwill and to make every effort possible to reach a successful conclusion.
On the E.F.T.A. meeting, to which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I went last Friday. This was one of many discussions we have had with them as to the future arrangements which might be made. Again, in their communiqué, they expressed the view that the initiative of the British Government could lead to a solution of these problems, and they said that it was the duty of each member country of E.F.T.A. to play its part in so doing. Denmark has already made her position plain by asking for accession under Article 237, and the other E.F.T.A. countries will be making their positon clear in due course. I should like to emphasise that it must be negotiations. It will be an attempt to reconcile conflicting interests.
I was asked yesterday about "adaptations" under Article 237. We view this as making consequential changes in the Treaty necessary on the accession of new members. There are other ways of dealing with other problems, either in the framework of the Treaty or by protocol, which can be used. Members of the Six have their own difficulties about negotiations, and sometimes we tend to overlook those difficulties. They have anxieties whether the accession of new members will impede the progress which they themselves are making. They also have anxieties about whether this will lead to a change of balance in the Community, and how it is to be adjusted. We have to take account of that in the negotiations, but we are determined to try to make a success of them. The objective is quite simple. It is to prevent a further division of Western Europe and create a wider partnership West of the Iron Curtain. We should have confidence in ourselves and in our partners that we can take advantage of this in an expanding and growing community. This will not only help us. It will enable us to help other parts of the world. I believe this to be of the greatest importance.

Mr. Robert Mathew: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the


mechanics of negotiation, will he confirm that all negotiations will be carried out on a political level—that is to say, by Ministers—and not on the Commission level by officials? Where appropriate during the negotiations, will a Commonwealth representative be present to take part?

Mr. Heath: The actual details of the negotiations will have to be arranged with the Six. There has not yet been time for them to be arranged.

Mr. E. Shinwell: The Lord Privy Seal has spoken for nearly an hour but has not said a single word about the specific conditions to be laid down which would induce the British Government to enter the Common Market.

Mr. Heath: I explained my position at the beginning of my speech. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not expect me to explain in public today the position which we will take up in negotiations. No Government have ever been asked to do that. We have given the House an assurance that we will give it the fullest possible details when we reach that stage of the negotiations. On the details, my impression is that the negotiations will be carried on between Governments at Government level. We have given the firm undertaking that the Commonwealth will be consulted the whole time.
We must try to achieve this wider partnership in Europe. We must not be dominated by fears and anxieties. Many have been expressed in the last twenty-four hours, and I have no doubt that many more will be expressed in the rest of the debate. We must have faith that we can deal with these new problems. I believe that if we can secure an arrangement successfully with the Community this country will indeed respond, not only for the benefit of itself but also—I fundamentally believe this—for the benefit of our partners in the Commonwealth.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: It must be obvious to the Government after the speeches by some of their supporters and by Members on this side of the House that a good deal of educational work on the facts of the situation must be carried out if the House eventually is to give a balanced judgment on whether we should join the Common Market. Although

The Times has done good work by publishing certain parts of the Treaty of Rome, Members of Parliament are not able to get a full copy of the Treaty through the usual channels in this House. It is true that a copy is in the Library, but in order to speak authoritatively on the different articles in the Treaty and relate the Treaty to all our fears and apprehensions we should each have a copy of the Treaty in order that we can consider what, either politically or economically, is imposed under its various articles.
Although I am well disposed towards the E.E.C. and am in favour generally of Britain's entering it, I have never been in favour of Britain accepting the Treaty of Rome as it stands today. We were not there when the Treaty was negotiated. It was negotiated between the six Powers. Therefore, it is only fair that we should have a say now in either the modification of various articles or the amendment or extension of the Treaty. I sincerely hope that the six will look upon such suggestions with favour. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman cannot tell us the result of his preliminary inquiries, but it would have been interesting to have had some information about the reactions of the Six in the talks which have been going on between the Six and the British Government during the past year. It is a close secret. It is small wonder that some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have voiced apprehensions, fears and suspicions, some of which may not be based on reality.
It is clear that the House cannot present heads of agreement to the Government so that they can take them with them when negotiating. I suspect that certain right hon. and hon. Members have such special interests that they are opposed entirely to Britain's entry into the Common Market. But there are many legitimate interests which concern us as representatives of the electors and which need clearing up. I do not think that this is the time to clear them up. All that the Government ask in their Motion, on which we shall probably vote tonight, is that we give them the power to go and negotiate.
It is useless for my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) to ask what are the conditions on which the Government are to negotiate. The


Government themselves know. We do not, but we are not asked to give a decision today on the conditions. The Government will obviously have to come to the House and ask for our approval of their negotiations. Together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) who also expressed the same sentiments in his concluding remarks, I am quite prepared to wish them good luck, God speed and a quick result. I do not think for one moment that we shall get a quick result. It took Greece about two years to negotiate the association that it is now getting under Article 238. It took the six Powers themselves quite a long time before they were able to agree on the Rome Treaty.
We have received quite a lot of advice from different right hon. and hon. Members. We have even had an elder statesman in the other place advising us how we should react to the Government Motion. All that advice should be given in good faith. When the question of federal union is raised as an Aunt Sally to be knocked down by my right hon. and hon. Friends, we should look at some of the published statements by prominent members of the Labour Party. I refer particularly to Lord Attlee, an ex-Prime Minister who, so I am told, still wields considerable authority in my party.
On the 21st anniversary of Federal Union Lord Attlee said this in his message to them:
I welcome the opportunity to congratulate Federal Union …
He went on to say:
The real challenge for the future is how far we are prepared to surrender the old concepts of absolute national sovereignty.
He said later:
Europe now has to serve the world. And the people of Europe must get together to put their long traditions to the service of humanity as a whole
If that is an honest expression of an honestly held opinion, I shall look with much interest to what my noble Friend has to say in another place today. How does he make this message to Federal Union coincide with what I understand to be his opposition to Britain even entering into negotiations? Perhaps his real motive is, as he said, that the Government are digging their own grave and he wants them to do the job thoroughly. I have no objection to the Government

digging their grave, but I have considerable objection to them burying me and others at the same time.
That is one reason why I support the Government's decision to negotiate. Neither "support" nor "approve" is really the right word to describe my attitude. I do not dissent from the Government's entering into negotiations. But what do words matter when we are dealing with problems of this nature, which are of such profound importance not only to this country but to the rest of the world?
The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) talked about sovereignty yesterday. In his usual cogent way, as an advocate not only in the House but in other places, he presented the whole issue of sovereignty in a nice, compact, lawyer-like, watertight package. He tried to show the rest of Europe that British sovereignty, with its constitution based on common law and evolved throughout the ages, was the real thing, and that other constitutions, based, as he said, on Roman law, which operate abroad, should be looked upon with a certain amount of suspicion. It is just that sort of utterance that causes tremendous fury in the minds of the people of Europe and elsewhere.
Many right hon. and hon. Members have legitimate fears in regard to the Commonwealth and agriculture, and I understand those fears. They are right to express them, but they must bear in mind that there is a much weightier problem with which we have to deal in discussing this matter. How did sovereignty avail us in the two world wars in which we have been involved in the lifetime of many of us? Our sovereignty might have been overwhelmed if Hitler had had his way, and in order that it should not be, we were prepared, at one moment—and I remember the historic occasion when the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) made the announcement —to pool our sovereignty with France, in common citizenship. I also remember that on that occasion not one voice was raised against the proposal in this House. Under the force of circumstances we were in full agreement with the Government of the day.
I do not think that it would be possible for any Government to suggest


that we should surrender our sovereignty today, but the Lord Privy Seal was right when he said that it will be necessary to pool some of our sovereignty under a revised arrangement with the European Economic Community if we are going to enter it. I see no reason why we should not do so. We use words as though they are talismen, and as if something will happen if we make use of them. But things do not happen in the way we want them to. A word like "sovereignty" should not be bandied about as it is by astute and plausible men, or hon. Members with legally-trained minds. Most of us are not in that category. We must consider the matter from the angle at which our constituents will look at it, and they do not have trained legal minds. We have to present to them, in as concise and as easily understood terms as possible, what it is that we propose Britain should do if she enters the Common Market.
I pay great attention to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton says, because on economic matters he speaks with a good deal of authority and knowledge. I was interested to hear him say that from the long-term point of view he thought that it would be to the advantage of this country to enter the Common Market. I have long thought that, because I have read the various analyses which have been made of the situation by various trade associations and organisations, and have seen the conclusions to which they have come. The majority opinion in industrial circles is in favour of Britain's going in; indeed, manufacturers are already lining up to go in.
Many of our leading companies have not waited for the Government to act. Like Her Majesty's Opposition, they have probably been somewhat frustrated by the apparent inactivity and laissez faire attitude of the Government in recent years. Many of them have gone in, and have made arrangements with their competitors in one or other of the Six countries, thereby presumably transferring a certain amount of capital—one of the objects of the Rome Treaty being the mobility of capital—and giving employment to foreign and not British labour. They are doing this because they think that it is worth while. Indeed, it may save some of those industries in the present situation of declining trade, of

which we know only too well from some of the published figures.
Much has been said about the Commonwealth. It is obvious that we cannot ignore sentiment and tradition. Many of us have relatives in Commonwealth countries. In the older Dominions especially we have our kith and kin. There are still many intimate links between the older Dominions and this country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) said that there were 20 million Scotsmen abroad, and there must be many links between some of them and the people of Scotland. For those people I have a good deal of sentiment, because when the Mother Country was in trouble they did not ask when they should come in; they came in at once. My right hon. Friend quoted from a letter which appeared in the Guardian, referring to the time when Mr. Nash, the then Prime Minister of New Zealand, who was negotiating with one of my right hon. Friend's who was a Minister, said, "Tell me what you want, and New Zealand will endeavour to get it for you."
But I have my doubts about some of the newly emerging members of the Commonwealth. I cannot go into their bona fides; they are members of the Commonwealth, and presumably they accept the system. But I have noted with considerable interest how some of their leaders do nothing but denigrate this country when they go abroad, especially to the Communist countries. We heard only recently of the tirade expressed in Hungary, or another of the satellite countries, by the President or Prime Minister of a Commonwealth country. That is not the way to get my support.
When I have to fight battles, as I have done in two world wars—and as many other hon. Members have also done—I look round to see who are my true comrades. If this country is in trouble again I hope that some of the newer Commonwealth countries will come to our aid in the same way as the older Dominions have done so often. If they do that I shall feel the same sentiment towards them that I feel for Australia, New Zealand and Canada. I have lived a good many years now. I have tested the value of friendship in the different spheres in which I have been


engaged, I know the meaning of the word "comradeship", which is so often bandied about without its spirit being carried out. Anybody who has fought in a war and has been in the Army knows the true meaning of that word.
That is the test. This holds good not only in a hot, military war but in the war that is constantly going on now—the cold war. We shall have a good bit of the cold war, in connection with Berlin, before we resume after the Recess. We shall then see who is prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with us in our attitude to that matter.
I have no doubt that the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) will refer to the question of agriculture. He has a far better knowledge of the matter than I have, although I have some good agricultural land in my constituency, which also has a lot of coal in it. Although the farmers may not support me in the numbers I would wish it is my duty to try to understand their problem. Let the House note that the position which agriculture is in today, and which it wants to maintain, was first made possible by a Labour Government, under the 1947 Agriculture Act.
The guaranteed prices which put the farming community on its feet were our business, and the farmers know it and say so. That is why Lord Williams of Barnburgh, as he is now called, is a hero among the farmers. In 1957, of course, that principle was continued in that Statute.
Every year there are negotiations about prices in the Price Review. I do not believe that that system is necessarily the final system. After all, who is going to say that the guaranteed price system as in the 1947 Act is the only one that can satisfy the farmers? I do not know the answer. I know that other countries have the same difficulties with their farmers. Germany has very considerable difficulties with her farmers. Other countries have a different system for maintaining a certain standard of living in their agricultural industry
As the Prime Minister said yesterday, it may very well be that our system may have to be modified. But what does that matter so long as we do not prejudice

the industry or, when it comes to the Commonwealth, as long as we do not reduce its standard of living by entering the Common Market? It is true that the enlarged market will be mainly for British manufactured goods. But I cannot believe that as the years go on—particularly in Australia—and as countries turn from being primary producing countries to manufacturing countries—as they are already doing, though, of course, in a small way compared with their primary industry—that some of them which are now mainly food producing countries may not also have an interest with their growing industrial production in Britain being a member of the Common Market.
The only question, however, that we have to decide tonight is whether we approve or not the Government entering into negotiations with the Six. I reiterate and echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton, although in most of his speech he gave expression to the difficulties which the Government would face. Nevertheless, I wholeheartedly wish the Government good luck. I do it on one ground only. It is not that I want the Government as such to have success. Although I may differ from some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, there is one thing with which I agree with them entirely and that is that a change of Government is necessary. But those of my hon. and right hon. Friends who talk so glibly about putting this issue to the electorate at an early date need have no fear that that will be done. This issue will go to the electorate but not until the next General Election if I am any judge of the length of time that the Government will need in order to give us the result of their negotiations. It is not going to be a quick process.
I believe that the main issue at the next election will be the question of whether Britain enters the Common Market. I only hope that hon. Members will make up their minds on the facts and will not have any preconceived or prejudiced views about Britain going in. In my view, the issue is whether in going in we should benefit our own people and those associated with us. That is why I shall support the Government tonight as, indeed, will many of my hon. Friends,


in their effort to get some sort of agreement which will enable us to go into the Common Market as free and as sovereign as possible.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton: I thought that the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) found the problems in this matter fairly easy to determine. He really only got very worked up when he was discussing his late colleague Lord Attlee and his views in the House of Lords. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I have been gravely concerned at the Government's decision to try to enter the Common Market. Because of that concern we placed on the Order Paper an Amendment setting out what we thought were important questions—the derogation of sovereignly, the position of the Commonwealth and the position of agriculture.
I notice that in their Motion the Government recognise the vital importance of those considerations, but, having done that, they then go on to say in the Motion that if these three principles, the principle of sovereignty, the principle of Commonwealth and the principle of agriculture are going to be sacrificed by us entering the Common Market they will come to the House and ask for its approval. It is because we do not think that that is a sufficient assurance that we tried to put down an addendum to the Government's Motion, which, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker was unable to find time to call.
In that addendum we ask the Government, before the negotiations start, to give definite assurances that certain things will not be bargained away. There is the political side, the Commonwealth side and E.F.T.A., and the agricultural side. I have listened very carefully to almost the whole of this debate, but no assurance has been given by any right lion. Gentleman speaking from the Government Front Bench that he will go to the negotiations having declared beforehand that these matters are not to be bar-gained away by him as a negotiator.
I must tell my right hon. Friend that unless we can, before this debate is ended, have clear assurances on these three matters—sovereignty, the Commonwealth and E.F.T.A. and agriculture—we shall not be able to support Her Majesty's

Government in the Division Lobbies tonight. Let us deal with these three matters in turn.
First, on the political side. Yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), in what I believe to be the most brilliant speech that has so far been made in this debate, defined our attitude on the question of sovereignty. As I regard the matter, it is really the freedom of the people of this country to choose their fate and also not to be tied up in any political federation or union.
In his speech, my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal divided this political question into what he called long-term and short-term questions of sovereignty. He declared, as did my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade last night, that there were overtones in this question of political federation or union with Europe, which he admitted, but he said that it would require an amendment of the Rome Treaty for it to be introduced. If that is the case, what is there to stop the Government from giving a firm assurance that in negotiations they will make it clear that this country will never go into a political federation or union with Europe? That is the first request which I make to Her Majesty's Government.
On the short-term question, I find it rather hard to understand the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal. He must remember that I, unlike my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East, am not a practising lawyer. But my right hon. Friend told us, and I took a note and I hope that he will correct me if I am wrong, that surrendering sovereignty was merely pooling sovereignty. That is merely begging the question. If we pool sovereignty we surrender our sovereignty in exchange for somebody else surrendering theirs.
Then my right hon. Friend spoke about the Commission under the Rome Treaty as not being an independent body which can act. I understood him to say the Commission is under the Council of Ministers, but if he will refer to Article 155 of the Treaty my right hon. Friend will find that it says:
…the Commission shall…dispose of a power of decision of its own…"—


and Article 157 provides that
…they shall not seek or accept instructions from any Government or other body.
I do not want to go further on this question of sovereignty. It has been well argued and far better argued than I can argue it by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East.
I turn now to the question of the Commonwealth. In his speech yesterday my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister used these words:
If I thought that our entry into Europe would injure our relations with and influence in the Commonwealth or be against the true interest of the Commonwealth, I would not ask the House to support this step."—[OFFICIAL] REPORT. 2nd August, 1961; Vol. 645, c. 1493.]
That puts our point of view very clearly.
In order to test the effect of what entering the Rome Treaty would have in the Commonwealth, the Prime Minister sent out what I have always called "the Ministerial doves" out of the ark. They have brought back not a twig but communiqués, and I want to read the effect of those communiqués. I shall quote the actual words and I am very glad that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, one of the doves, has now returned to the Chamber.
First, Canada
…expressed the grave concern of the Canadian Government about the implications of possible negotiations between Britain and the European Economic Community, and about the political"—
and I emphasise the word "political"—
and economic effects which British membership in the European Economic Community would have on Canada and on the Commonwealth as a whole.
Australia said:
…avoidance of a divided Western Europe…should not be accomplished at the cost of division within the Commonwealth or elsewhere in the free world. Australian Ministers expressed their concern at the weakening effect they believed this development would have on the Commonwealth relationship.
New Zealand
…stressed the grave consequences…
India said that the Treaty of Rome
might weaken existing Commonwealth links…

Pakistan was
..concerned about the adverse consequences that were likely to follow on the United Kingdom joining the Common Market…
Even Cyprus expressed fear. The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland expressed concern
about the possible effects on the Commonwealth as a whole of Britain's entry into the European Common Market.
The West Indies pointed out that
accession posed a serious threat to vital West Indies interests…
If there was any purpose in those doves going out of the ark surely this House should pay some attention to their message. It is quite true that the various communiqués were dressed up in different words but there is a curious similarity in their form. I have a suspicion that in this case Noah sent out a prepared twig for the doves to bring back but there were some alterations in it which I have read out.
If, however, we do not wish to rely on the communiqués we might rely on what has been said by Prime Ministers who have been good friends of Britain in the past. Their message is even clearer. Mr. Menzies said on 13th July:
The political implications of British participation in the Common Market were very great. Britain would be involved in European politics for the first time and could not remain as individual and detached as she was today. Mr. Sandys felt that none of these things would affect the Commonwealth relationship—well, we think it will !
Mr. Holyoake said on 1st July:
New Zealand claims the continued right of unrestricted and duty-free access to the U.K. market for our meat and dairy produce. This is the whole basis of our economy. We have not been able to discover, and nobody has been able to show us, any alternative that would avoid disaster for our economy".
So that we may have both political sides I quote what was said by Mr. F. P. Walsh, President of the New Zealand Federation of Labour, on 10th July:
I know I am right in saying that the people of New Zealand, when they realise what is involved, will be utterly opposed to British entry into the European Common Market.
Surely from these comments the House will acknowledge that we have caused by our action grave concern in the Commonwealth.
Can we not get the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations when he


winds up the debate tonight to tell the House and the country and the Common Market that there are certain vital Commonwealth principles which we will stand by in the negotiations? First, that the right of free entry for the Commonwealth product will not be bartered away in any negotiations. Secondly, the system of Commonwealth preferences will be substantially maintained. Thirdly, we will preserve the traditional rôle of the Commonwealth with all that that means in the political field.
I beg the Government to realise that in this question of the Commonwealth what is in jeopardy is really the whole political concept of the Commonwealth. I believe that in the next twenty years the future of the world will depend a great deal on how far by this multi-racial partnership we can bring the continents together. If through our imprisonment behind the tariff barriers of this continental system we lose the opportunity of drawing the multi-racial Commonwealth partnership of the continents together and by this means we split the Commonwealth, I believe that those who are responsible for the Government of this country will have failed gravely in their responsibilities and duties.
I believe that there is an opportunity here for a positive new Commonwealth trade policy. Last night my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said, "Well, the only alternative to this is a Commonwealth free trade policy and nobody wants that". There he was falling into the same error as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation perpetrated when he made the great blunder in Canada just before the Commonwealth Economic Conference. I believe that we have opportunities if we seek to revise the provisions of G.A.T.T., as my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley. South (Mr. Russell) has mentioned, for a greater expanding Commonwealth trade to our benefit and to the benefit of the Commonwealth.
There is, of course, the difficulty of G.A.T.T. Let us remember the history of G.A.T.T. The Socialist Government had to take that loan from America which I opposed in 1946. I thought that it was wrong, and then they paid the price of that loan in the provisions of G.A.T.T., under which we cannot alter our Commonwealth trading arrangements to our

benefit although any new free trade area or common market, like the European Economic Community and the Latin-American Common Market, are absolutely free to do so. That is wrong and unfair. We are frozen to our pre-war trading arrangements.
It is significant that now, in the very week that we are asking the United States and the International Monetary Fund for a loan of £716 million, we find ourselves also asking to enter the Common Market. Although my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal repudiated that this move had been openly advocated by President Kennedy, it is well known that, for a long time, America has been trying to drive Britain into entering into the Common Market. To use the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden) in another connection, it would appear that Britain is tonight being dragged kicking and screaming into the Common Market in the arms of her American financial nurse. That is the danger.
I do not believe that in the interests of the Commonwealth or of Britain we should neglect Commonwealth trade and get too tied up with the trade of Europe. For four years, we have been trying to get closer in trade to Europe, trying to see how through the Free Trade Area proposal and E.F.T.A. we can get more trade with Europe. Look at the results. In those four years, comparing 1956 with 1960, our exports to the Common Market countries have gone up by £86 million, but our imports went up by £170 million, so in that operation our balance of trade has gone to the bad by about £100 million. If we then take the six leading Commonwealth countries, we find that our exports were about double what they were to the Common Market countries. In those four years they went up by £46 million, but our imports dropped by £18 million. If only the Government in those last four years had paid as much attention to Commonwealth trade as they have to European trade, our balance of payments position today would be very different, and also the health, economy and prosperity of our Commonwealth would have been greatly improved.
Let me say a few words on agriculture. In my view, we have given agriculture


explicit assurances that during the lifetime of this Parliament the 1957 Act shall be continued. In my view, it would be politically dishonourable and economically unwise in our negotiations to argue for our agriculture on any other basis. I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not saying that for all time and for all commodities the present methods of support have to be continued, but I am saying that I do not believe that this country will tolerate the Government abandoning the broad basis of our agricultural support that both parties in this House have given before, during and after the war.
I would say that in agriculture there are two essential principles that the Government ought to make quite clear in their negotiations. The first is that we should continue to give to agriculture the pledge of remunerative prices and assured markets for its products. That case ought to be made quite clear to those with whom we are to negotiate. The second pledge is that we retain the right to work out our own agricultural policy here for the interests of British agriculture and not have our policy dictated for British agriculture by any outside body in the interests of Continental agriculture. Those are the assurances on agriculture that I wish the Government to give to the House tonight.
I touch on one other matter that I should like, at this stage, to be cleared up. I am not at all happy about one reply that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave last Monday to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). He was asked what would happen if the negotiations failed. The Prime Minister replied that if our negotiations fail
quite a lot of things will happen and quite major chances may have to be made in the foreign policy and in the commitments of Great Britain "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st July, 1961; Vol 645, c. 937–8.]
I think that the House and the country would like to have that clarified. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] We want to know if this is a pistol poised at the head of France, if it is a fully loaded pistol or if the Prime Minister is playing some form of Russian roulette. There is a great danger in this. There are two sides to the danger. By that remark,

the Prime Minister may force us into a position of being in a dilemma when either we have to sacrifice some principles that we in this country deem essential or take the course of breaking up the Western Alliance and the Atlantic Treaty.
I have grave doubts about these negotiations. I have fears that we shall be sacrificing so much that I value and am proud of in this country. I have also fears that, if my right hon. Friends are resolute in defence of these principles, we shall end in estranging Britain from those countries in Western Europe just at the time when they have estranged the Commonwealth by trying to explain what they intend to do. For those reasons, I beg the Government to think again. I have always wanted the Government to get down early to negotiations, but not in the way that Article 237 would commit them, and I always hoped that the right way was for us and the Commonwealth to negotiate together under Article 238.
I listened with great surprise to what my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal said about Article 238. He told us that it was only devised for some agreement with a small nation or a neutral nation. Article 238 states:
The Community may conclude with a third country, a union of States or an international organisation agreements creating an association embodying reciprocal rights and obligations…
I do not see any mention there of the small nation or of the neutral nation. This is a device for seeing whether certain economic advantages cannot be worked out in negotiation—

Mr. Heath: What I said was that that was the general view resulting from the discussions we have had. It is perfectly true that that is the situation according to the article, but the idea behind the conception of that article, and the general view about it among those who have to operate it, is as I have described. I did not say that it was for neutral nations. I said that I hoped it would be possible for the neutral nations in E.F.T.A. to take advantage of it, but that is still a matter of negotiation.

Mr. Turton: It may well be that my right hon. Friend will find that the view of the Common Market countries of


what is meant by entry into the Common Market is something rather different from what I, certainly, envisage. We are still a sovereign nation. Cannot we say to the Common Market that we want to be friends, and that we want to encourage more trade if they will trade more with the Commonwealth and do a deal? Otherwise, we shall be landed in a very difficult position.
I beg the Government to think again, and, before the negotiations start, to give us assurances of what will not be bartered away. There must, of course, be many matters that will be the subject of negotiation, but there are some things that my constituents and those of many of my hon. Friends would not wish to see bartered away.
Those of us who have signed this Amendment are hon. Members who have been loyal Conservatives far a long time, trying to follow Conservative principles and policy. Some of us have, at times, had a snare in framing that policy. I beg the Government to realise that it is not easy for us to take our present line over this problem of the Common Market. In regard to Commonwealth policy, during my time in this House I have found no difficulty in following loyally the ideas and principles of men like Leo Amery, Oliver Stanley, Oliver Lyttelton and, more recently, Alan Lennox-Boyd: or, indeed, the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), who declared that he did not intend to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire; or, indeed, of Sir Anthony Eden. No one could accuse him of being slow in friendship to Europe and of giving it support, but all the time he gave inspired and inspiring leadership to the Commonwealth.
We may be a few hon. Members in this House of Commons, but I warn the Government that, outside, there are hundreds of thousands of Conservatives who hold the views I hold. If the Government cannot give these assurances, and if those people feel that in this way the Government have betrayed the Commonwealth and our sovereignty, I fear that the Government will split not only the Commonwealth but the Conservative Party.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell: I am sure that the whole House will have listened with great interest and respect to the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). We have listened with respect, particularly, because of the great difficulty that people find when their views put them without the general comradeship of their own party, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to believe that those who take a view contrary to his are motivated by thoughts just as sincere and by study over just as long a period, but who, nevertheless, approach the problem from an altogether different angle.
I do not think that we can afford to be oblivious of what is happening in Europe today. That is why the Prime Minister is being dragged in now, instead of going in a year ago. When the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) spoke yesterday—giving what was, if he will allow me to say so, an outstanding performance—I thought that his speech was out of its time context. It would have been even better and more characteristic in 1906 than in 1961.
He was speaking from a presumption of power, and with the idea that we hold international aces today. I do not think that we do hold them. That speech was not made on a basis of the weakness with which we have to go into these negotiations. Nobody can deny that, in 1961, we see the slow decline of the United Kingdom as an economic and political power. That, after all, was the burden of the Chancellor's message last week.
We have to ask ourselves the following questions. What is the end of all our political efforts? What do we stand for? Why are we in this place at all? That is a question that men have asked since the beginning of time, and I suppose that those who asked it in ancient days said that the object was the good life, so providing the answer that we accept today. Perhaps I may, therefore, spend a minute or two in telling the House what I consider to be the good life.
I say that the good life can today only be founded on a sound economic basis which will maintain full employment for the 50 million people in these islands. When people stop speaking about


agriculture—which may, of course, be the livelihood of most of their constituents—and when they stop speaking about the Commonwealth and all the other interests, what any Prime Minister has to consider as the first priority is the life and livelihood and economic well-being of the natives of these islands-50 million of them. That is the first thing, and I start from that point.
What is the greatest misery for 50 million people? I suggest that it is a declining economy resulting in unemployment. I made this same point in my maiden speech twelve years ago on the question of why full employment must be the first priority of all our domestic policy. I said then that full employment does not just mean giving the wife enough at the end of the week, bringing up the children and putting them to bed at night in comfort. More than anything else, full employment means a man on his feet instead of a supplicant on his knees.
It has always been my claim that when we ask what we mean by the good life we must start with full employment. I say to hon. Gentlemen opposite who have not had the experience of one who has had a very long spell of unemployment—two years of it in the first three years of married life—that it enters into one's being and takes away from one a sense of security that one never fully recovers.
When people speak about a "spot of unemployment" here and there, however small, to give balance to the economy, it sends a shiver down my spine. I would give them a taste of it themselves, because it is always someone else who has to be out of a job when we get economists and cranks using such a phrase and the Chancellor of the Exchequer giving colour to it.
How do we maintain the viability of this island? To do so, we must continue to be a market and a source of capital for the Commonwealth and for the sterling area. As hon. Members opposite have said, we have to be masters in our own house, but I find that the arguments put forward by those who wish to stay out of the Common Market on grounds both of sovereignty and of the Commonwealth to be wholly conflicting.

The people who say that we can do nothing without the Commonwealth have even quoted what Archbishop Makarios would have us do. Incidentally, I find that a bit much coming from hon. Members opposite.
I find it rather curious to hear Members opposite put up the argument of sovereignty. At least I grant to my colleagues on this side of the House who disagree with me about the Common Market that the conception of the Commonwealth on the benches opposite is different from the conception of the Commonwealth on this side of the House. When the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton speaks of the Commonwealth, what does he speak of? Sir Roy Welensky's rights? He has been backing them up recently. I doubt whether my hon. Friends who use the Commonwealth as an argument will use the same people as examples. Do we speak of Jomo Kenyatta's Commonwealth? He may be in a responsible position before we have finished.
What do we really mean by the Commonwealth in this context, and in the question of sovereignty? The very form of the Commonwealth itself is an argument for the pooling of sovereignty. We pool our sovereignty in the Commonwealth. Do we call ourselves first among equals, or do we call ourselves partners in the Commonwealth?

Mr. Turton: We do not pool our sovereignty in the Commonwealth. We are all sovereign States.

Mr. Pannell: That is curious casuistry, since people speak of economic preference and of the Ottawa Agreement, and the rest. Of course, it is a pool of sovereignty. It may be a willing pool, but it is nevertheless an abrogation of sovereignty.
In parenthesis, I want to say something about agriculture. I recognise that the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton speaks for one of the great agricultural constituencies. But there are only four or five constituencies in which the agricultural vote predominates, and his is one. I make no aspersion on him when I say that he is very much alive to the views of his constituents. My only agricultural point is to mention that when I was coming to the House I heard a statement over the radio, which


I have verified and which will probably answer those people who have been overstating the case for the Commonwealth. This is the news which went over the B.B.C. this morning:
The Chairman of the Australian Wheat Board, Sir John Teasdale, has said that if Britain joins the Common Market there should be no immediate setback to Australia's wheat trade.
If my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) had heard that this morning, perhaps he would not have taken the line that he did. The radio went on.
Even if the Common Market imposed a tariff on wheat, Australia would be in much the same position as before, because the tariff would apparently also apply to the other main wheat suppliers of Europe, the United States, Canada and Russia. Sir John said that it was unlikely that the European countries themselves would be able to increase their output of wheat.
That was Sir John Teasdale's view. I rather fancy that a great deal of propaganda has to be accounted for.
How do we envisage the Commonwealth in thirty years' time? Dr. Nkrumah has been speaking in Eastern Europe. How does he visualise the future? In parenthesis,I should add that I believe that South Africa will still be a running sore in the Commonwealth long after she has gone out and that we may well find, before the end of the century, an African Common Market. That is what I have gathered from my African friends, because they do not consider themselves to be for all time in association with these islands.
They will follow the some pattern as Australia. They will build up their own heavy industries first, and then light industries. It is a characteristic of emerging Powers that they sometimes get their priorities wrong. When they first emerge and begin to educate their nationals, the leaders all want to be politicians. Afterwards come the professional men—the lawyers and the civil servants. Eventually these Governments get down to the fundamental truth that prosperity depends upon their technicians and engineers and upon the building up of a craftsman class. When I give a helping hand to a young Nigerian I rejoice rather more if he is a civil engineer than if he has passed a law degree.
I do not think that Africa looks at the Commonwealth as we do. Have hon.

Members opposite considered all that is left of the world surface? With the up-surging of world population, Africa is the one continent left which might have the resources to feed all its own children. We may well see a Common Market in Latin America. Cuba may be the beginning of the end for the United States and a threat to the Monroe Doctrine.
I am sad that in this sort of economic argument all sorts of things are raised which outrage me as a Socialist. There was recently a letter in The Times which gave as a reason for staying out of the Common Market what it called:
…a divided Germany, seething with bitterness and ideological differences…
It spoke of the yearning in Germany for the lost territories. It also referred to the internal revolts of the peasants in France. But, after all, we had our last labourers revolt in 1830. The letter added that the Belgian coal industry was in ruins.
The letter started off by giving as one of the reasons why we should not go into the Common Market the spectacle of Italy harassed by over-population and unemployment. But the fact that there is a distressed area in Europe should be a reason for Socialism and for aid, just as we speak of aid to the emerging territories. It is as though we were to argue that Ulster is no concern of ours, but Ulster has a higher level of unemployment than at least one of the Six.
I have always preached that a spot of unemployment anywhere is a threat to full employment everywhere. Hon. Members speak of the fear of immigration. One would think that no immigrants were coming into the country now. There is terror at the prospect of Italians coming in, but 11,000 of them came last year and nobody noticed them. What about the Germans? There is a lot of fuss about 500 German troops coming to a range in South Wales.
These men may well be the sons and grandsons of German Socialists, and some of my colleagues tend to forget that the first people who suffered under Hitler were not the Jews but Germans—the German Socialists. Nearly 10,000 Germans came here on permit last year, and nobody noticed them. There were no Adjournment debates and no one was outraged. But take 500 German troops


and put them in South Wales and we have resolutions all over the place. It is all sheer bilge and poppycock, self-delusion and humbug.
There are those who do not like de Gaulle. Last year 3,400 Frenchmen came here. I take it that they were assimilated largely on the South Coast. When I have been down to places like Bournemouth, I have seen them in the music shops. In addition, there were 2,400 Dutch immigrants.
Then we get the argument that there are differences in wages and conditions. But it has to be a severe difference to cause a man to uproot himself, his family and his livelihood and come to a new country and learn a foreign language. Are we under such a threat? We shall have to provide much better conditions before we shall get a flood of immigrants from Europe.
The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), who is not now in his place, told the story yesterday about the Welfare State being dismantled because the building workers would have to do away with one of their tea-breaks. He went on to rebuke the philosophy of what he called Mr. Butskell. Generally speaking, when I see today's Order Paper I consider Mr. Butskell far more rational than Mr. Silverbrooke.
People who have been making speeches since the time of the Schuman Plan had better look up their statistics since that time and find out what has happened in Europe. Consider public holidays. In France, the total of annual and public holidays together—I have telescoped the statistics to save time—is between 25 and 31 days; in Germany it is between 25 and 28; in Italy it is 31, and in the Netherlands it is between 18 and 28. We give our workers about 18 days' holiday a year. Therefore, that argument surely fails.

Sir James Duncan: Paid holidays.

Mr. Pannell: Yes. Then we have had the argument that; somehow, we shall be undercut in world markets. Let us consider wages and their value, which is more important than the wages themselves, compared with the cost of living and see how they are improving in some

of the Six faster than they are here. The gross hourly wages run like this. Last year in Germany there was an increase of 10 per cent., in France of 6½ per cent., in Italy of 5 per cent., in the Netherlands of 9 per cent. and in Britain of 3 per cent. In Germany, the cost of living has gone up 2 per cent., France 4 per cent., in Italy 2 per cent., in the Netherlands, 1 per cent. and in the United Kingdom 1 per cent. If one takes the value of hourly wages, in Germany it is plus 8 per cent., in France 2½ per cent., in Italy 3 per cent., in the Netherlands 8 per cent. and in the United Kingdom, 2 per cent. We are not exactly keeping up in the league.
Taking the purchasing power of the weekly wage by the best comparisons available—I am quoting from the European Labour Bulletin—it has gone up in Germany by 8½ per cent., in France by 4 per cent., in Italy by 5 per cent., in the Netherlands by approximately 2½ per cent. and in this country by 1 per cent. The only argument I am making is that people in these other countries are bringing themselves up. Social benefits are being increasingly bestowed. It is a great mistake to try to judge Europe from the time that the Labour Government introduced the Welfare State. Its example has been followed in other places.
I have not as yet made many quotations, but I call in aid the president of my own union when speaking this year to the Engineering and Shipbuilding Confederation. Talking of the Common Market, Mr. William Carron spoke of the main question of a Britain Government retaining full and adequate economic powers to maintain full employment, which is the text of the speech I am making now, and said:
We should face the fact, squarely, that no economic control or device yet invented can maintain full employment in a country like Britain, which relies on a large overseas trade to make a living, if it chooses to live in comparative isolation from the fastest expanding and the most dynamic economic groupings of the world such as the Economic Community of the Six. And let nobody try any longer to make us believe that it is either the Commonwealth or Europe with whom we have to develop trade. Both can be done simultaneously. There is little doubt that if Britain expresses her desire to join the Common Market, her special Commonwealth commitments can be provided for by negotiation just as were the commitments of other


members with regard to their associated overseas territories when the Rome Treaty was signed in 1957.
Let me revert to full employment. The other thing is that in Article 3 the Rome Treaty specifically dedicated, among other policies, to improving the employment position and to the raising of living standards in the Community, and in Article 123 to establishing and using a special European social fund for
promoting employment facilities and the geographical and occupational mobility of workers".
a fact which has been welcomed by the Continental unions.
Although the European Free Trade Association Treaty, of which Britain is a member, also declares its faith in full employment and in improved living standards, it falls far short of the Rome Treaty in that it does not make provision for a social fund or, indeed, any positive measure to back up its declared aim of full employment. In view of this, I find it difficult to understand why some people take a more favourable view of the Free Trade Association than of the Common Market.
When we discuss full employment I am still puzzled why people continually imply that association with the Common Market will threaten full employment here. In 1960 the average unemployment in West Germany was 1·2 per cent. In France it was even lower, and in the United Kingdom last year's average rate was 1·7 per cent. I also find it remarkable that people of the Atlantic community and our allies in N.A.T.O. get so alarmed that those citizens who come here and work are the same people—and I am among them—who would die at the last ditch for the right of Commonwealth citizens, whatever their colour, to come into this country. People do not want to keep the Commonwealth out. I do not. There are certain hon. Members opposite who had better search their consciences when they plead about the Commonwealth. Some hon. Members opposite would restrict immigration. We on this side would not. As long as there is a job to be done, it should be done. Our economy would not have kept going very well in the public sector, on British

Railways and other places, unless West Indian citizens had come here.
We have had another argument. I beg the pardon of hon. Members opposite if I deal with the philosophy of my own party, but I am far more susceptible to the criticism of my hon. Friends than of hon. Members opposite, to whom I am largely indifferent. I have heard it said from these benches that association with Europe would make it difficult for a British Government to bring industries under public ownership. Nobody who is a Socialist would argue with that—I certainly do not. We must, however, bear in mind that although we have 20 per cent. of our industries under public ownership, there are far greater percentages than that in other countries of Western Europe. France and Italy have a far higher proportion of industries under public ownership. They would not welcome restrictions to it at all.
The question is whether it would restrict us from bringing new industries under public ownership. It would not. In spite of the propaganda put out by people who have never read it, the Rome Treaty is completely neutral about whether industries should be publicly or privately owned. There are no restrictive articles in respect of the nationalised industries. In fact, the only occasion on which they are mentioned is in Article 90, which makes it clear that they are subject to the same rules as privately-owned enterprises.

Mr. Warbey: Exactly.

Mr. Pannell: I am glad that I carry even my hon. Friend with me.

Mr. Warbey: If my hon. Friend studies that article, he will see that it will be impossible for a Socialist Government to favour publicly-owned industries in the interests of the community.

Mr. Pannell: Only with regard to a tariff on exports. I have also read it. I can give my hon. Friend knowledge but I cannot give him understanding.
In the main, this argument between the Commonwealth and the Common Market is largely "phoney". It is an argument between joining the Common Market and isolation from Europe.

ROYAL ASSENT

6.31 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:

The House went:—and, having returned

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Appropriation Act, 1961.
2. Suicide Act, 1961.
3. Licensing Act, 1961.
4. Trustee Investments Act, 1961.
5. Highways (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1961.
6. Public Health Act, 1961.
7. Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1961.
8. Poole Corporation Act, 1961.
9. Port of London Act, 1961.
10. Great Ouse Water Act, 1961.
11. London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1961.
12. Bristol Corporation Act, 1961.
13. Devon County Council Act, 1961.
14. River Ravensbourne, &amp;c. (Improvement and Flood Prevention) Act, 1961.
15. Newport Corporation Act, 1961.

And to the following Measures, passed under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:

Baptismal Registers Measure, 1961.

Clergy Pensions Measure, 1961.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. C. Pannell: I wonder whether we shall have that sort of medieval ceremony in the European Common Market. I find this interruption rather difficult. Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, after he had been speaking for four hours on the question of legislation about the Plimsoll line, said, "Having made those prefatory remarks…" However, I give this comfort to the House, and to my hon. Friend

the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) sitting restlessly in front of me, that I am not far from the end of my speech.
I only want to say this. Many people in this debate have called down through collective memory many various phases of the history of our country. We have had, for instance, fascinating glimpses of the beginning of the Lord Privy Seal's office, the ventures of the king of Spain— I rather think—and I hope that hon. Gentlemen who are opposed to me will not think this taking too gloomy a view —that our children and our children's children, looking back at this time—say, in a hundred years from now—will probably put down the period between the First and the Second Elizabeth as that of our colonial aberration, a period in which we grew up, we spawned our kind over all the five continents, and fertilised the world with money, and brought in the English century, the nineteenth century, and gave the world the picture of the first great industrial revolution, and then, having allowed our Commonwealth to come to adult status as a body of self-governing nations, we came back to where we started—in Europe.
I would remind the House of some words which Aneurin Bevan gave to the House when he said that whenever one of our Colonial Territories came to self-governing status hon. Gentlemen opposite set up a wail as though we had lost something, instead of recognising the fact that another nation had come to adulthood. He also said that as those countries learned their lessons, quite apart from us, and got a status equal to our own, we would cease to be in a sort of superior position as a great imperial Power, and we, the British people, "must learn to be great in other ways."
That is where we start from here. We are not naturally the overlords of the world. We are a great people, an inventive people, a people who have given much to the world, and we still have much to give. Though, of course, the speeches from our Front Bench must naturally be critical of the Government, because we on this side are the Opposition, and must tend to emphasise the points of difference between us and the Government, I should like the Government and other people who believe in


the Common Market to know that there is a tremendous fund of good will on this side of the House for the Common Market. There are a great many people who, having thought hard and long about it, have come to the conclusion that it is the next great step in our island history. It is not a matter of presiding over the break-up of the Commonwealth. It is the ushering in of a new sense of national greatness.
In conclusion, I say to the Government that although, of course, we press the Amendment, speaking for myself and, I believe, for the majority of my col-leagues—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—I have not strung out the points of difference in this matter but I am prepared to emphasise them if necessary—there is, I think, a great fund of good will. We sincerely hope that these talks will succeed and that the Ministers will be able to bring back to us a settlement which we can find honourable and can accept with self-respect; and that this Chamber and Parliament itself, as leaders and representatives and not delegates of the people of England, will find this a thing which suits their purpose and gives them a new dynamic in the second half of the twentieth century.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: This is one of the most interesting debates in which it has been my good fortune to take part. May I for once refer a lot to the arguments which hon. Members from both sides of the House have put forward yesterday and today. If it will not embarrass him, I should like to start by congratulating the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) both on his robust commonsense and for the very definite line which he has taken. This was in marked contrast to the Leader of the Opposition, and to the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), who dealt mostly with the hypothetical and maintained, as did Rikki-Tikki-Tavi in Kipling's story, the mongoose's natural posture of defence: alert and balanced, ready to leap in any direction.

Mr. John Rankin: He stated the mind of the party.

Mr. Macmillan: I should like to congratulate, although I cannot agree with him, my right hon. Friend the Member

for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), on his most sincere and impressive speech. He quoted various statements which Commonwealth leaders had made. Although statements to the contrary effect were produced by the hon. Member for Leeds, West, I think it perhaps natural that at this juncture the Commonwealth should express anxiety and difference: indeed, it is not unhelpful at the start of negotiations. But the Government have given assurances and so far as I can see the pledges which my right hon. Friend was demanding have already been given. Perhaps his demands are natural; so clearly did he disbelieve the previous denial by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal that he felt bound to renew the charge today that we were being bribed into the Common Market by an I.M.F. loan. If my right hon. Friend did not believe that denial, it is perhaps natural that he should not believe in the present intentions of the Government, especially under the existing leadership. But I would remind him that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) who first talked about leading Britain into a United States of Europe. It is perhaps natural, therefore, that he should require assurances on his own terms whether or not these may prejudice the chances of negotiations.
I think that in this debate there has been a great deal of confusion of thought as to premises. Perhaps this confusion is pardonable, because it is visible in the Six. Indeed, there is conflict within the Common Market. But I think it quite inexcusable on the part of anyone to make the assumption that we are going into a federal union. The recent declaration at Bonn, which has been quoted more than once today, made quite clear that in demanding that the United Kingdom should accept the political implications, the Six made plain that these implications did not include federalism. These bogies are raised in order to chill our flesh, and I think they are real only on the assumption that we are to sign the Treaty as it stands, whether or not we get what we want in the negotiations. They are, therefore, believable only by those who have no faith whatever in the word of this Government.
People also make the mistake of interpreting the Rome Treaty on the most severe federal lines, which would indeed


worry many of the signatories to it. I would remind the House that these distorted views could lead to great dangers and that those who seek to defend an illusionary empire may succeed in damaging the real Commonwealth. It is necessary not only to maintain the right to act but the power to do so. My right hon. Friend referred to the freedom of this country to choose its fate. I am worried lest we lose the ability to do so.
I think that in some moods we are all reluctant to face the dangers and difficulties of the modern world. But it is no good trying to compensate for that by building up a defence, made passionate by nostalgia, for a world which for better or worse no longer exists. My noble friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) referred to Napoleon. Perhaps it was the mounting resemblance of de Gaulle to that historic figure which inspired my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) to don the mantle of Burke or Disraeli and dazzle us with his forensic skill in a speech which excited the admiration of the whole House. It was a truly magnificent oratorical performance.
My right hon. and learned Friend and his friends are making certain proposals on the assumption that there will be no trade war at all if we do not go into the Common Market; on the contrary, that E.F.T.A., or something like it, will continue and that the Commonwealth will reverse its present policy. My right hon. and learned Friend warned us that this might require some very tough negotiation with the Commonwealth as well as over the G.A.T.T. I think that his assumption requires a change in the Commonwealth attitude, and would bring about a more inward looking position both in it and in the United Kingdom, and make what might be certain regrettable changes here inevitable. It would involve a possible unilateral lowering of tariffs and denunciation of the G.A.T.T.
My right hon. and learned Friend is not so logical as my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South, who is against free trade wherever it may rear its ugly head. He is not against free trade. He is in favour of association

with the Common Market under Article 238. I do not want to repeat all the arguments regarding the merits of the different articles, but perhaps I can sum up the position of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends by saying that they are quite content to take up a large block of shares in this enterprise but insist on refusing the seat on the board that goes with it.
The dilemma of the Left is much more real, if I may for a moment intercede in that side of the House, I think that hon. Members may be confused between internationalism, which is general but vague, and the sort of supra-nationalism which is possibly implied in the Rome Treaty, which is quite precise and very limited. That is why I think—though this may sound odd coming from this side of the House—that one may reassure hon. Gentlemen opposite that Britain's entry into the Common Market will not be something which would make socialism difficult or impossible in this country.
Indeed, I would rather argue that association under Article 237 is a defence against federalism. Yesterday we heard a certain amount about the dangers of monolithic great Powers and of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth being forced into one bloc or another Personally, I would have thought that there is less of a danger of intimidation by these monolithic Powers, less of a danger of a necessity to build a United States of Europe, if we go into a Europe which accepts integration as an alternative because, so far as I can see, the only other choice is either the sort of monolithic position which we all deplore, or straight inaction leading, as it can only do, to the balkanisation of Europe and weakness.
I think, too, there is no question if we keep to the terms set out in the Government's Motion that we shall carry the E.F.T.A. countries with us. In fact, I think the United Kingdom's association with the Common Market will make it easier for the more limited form of association which neutrality may impose on some of its members. I hope, too, that it will enable the Common Market to become outward looking. Just so far as it does not reject forms of association for Austria, Switzerland and Sweden it may not reject them for some of


those countries now behind the Iron Curtain, I should deplore the possibility of our association leading to a reduction in legitimate trade with Russia and the Iron Curtain countries.
A great deal has been said about sovereignty. My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton referred to the power of decision which was vested in the Commission. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertford referred to the provisions of the Commission as being mandatory. He quoted the phrase that the Commission speaks wtih independence and that a proposal made by it is an autonomous political act. That may be the hope of those who drafted it, but it is not the fact. So far, whatever may be the theory, only Governments have the power to act. I think the quotation put forward by the hon. Member for Ash-field (Mr. Warbey) indicated that. Since it is Heads of State that instruct the Commission to make their association statutory, that is a sovereign act. As the Lord Privy Seal pointed out, that statutory condition can be obtained only by unanimous vote, a vote on which the United Kingdom would have a veto if before that stage we were a member of the Common Market.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: My hon. Friend referred to my reference to the proposal by the Commission for an autonomous political act. Does he not appreciate that that is taken from the Third General Report of the activities of the Community and is, therefore, an official statement of how this has been found to work out in practice? Does that not invest it with a particular significance for a country signing for adherence?

Mr. Warbey: I happened to open the Rome Treaty at page 89 of the English text and read in Article 90, paragraph 3:
The Commission shall ensure the application of the provisions of this Article and shall, where necessary, issue appropriate directives or decisions to Member States.

Mr. Macmillan: None of that alters the point I was trying to make. It merely emphasises that in the words of the Rome Treaty and in the ideas of the Commission, a thought, a proposal, is an act. It is not an act as I mean it. Their sort of "act" can be carried into effect only by the Governments of the Member

States concerned. No one else has the power or the authority to do so. If hon. and right hon. Members who have objected will bear with me a little longer they will see that, whatever the juridical position, the practical position requires unanimity. The Coal and Steel High Authority was quite powerless, when faced with the situation of over-production, to impose for the benefit of smaller countries solutions which would be damaging to France and Germany.
On a common foreign policy, for example, there is no joint policy over a matter of common concern to the countries of the Six such as what we might call the liberation of their former colonies. As a matter of fact, there is the reverse, the somewhat sorry spectacle of some of these nations hoping to benefit from the failures of others. Again, the Council of Ministers is European when it suits each member's interest; the interest of the Community is, in practice, very much the first to go. All this is not very dissimilar to the methods of N.A.T.O. and Western European Union. The Assembly passes resolutions. So, I know full well, does the Assembly of Western European Union and of the Council of Europe, but so far as I know no one has ever yet acted upon them.
The position of civil servants is slightly different, for there is a difference in principle, but it is a difference in kind rather than one in degree. Just as the Governments are the only people who can act, so still this international bureaucracy is under governmental control because it is the home governments which have to appoint its members. It is perfectly logical to turn one's back, as some hon. and right hon. Friends do, on many of these derogations of sovereignty, including the G.A.T.T., but not, I am happy to say, on some of the others, N.A.T.O. and so on.
I do not want to go into that argument, which has already been over-laboured, but I make one point about it. The Commonwealth is not in the narrow sense a political alliance. It is something much more than that if it means anything at all—as I believe it does—and the Common Market is something much less. To me, the Commonwealth and United Kingdom interests are much more likely to be threatened


by the Atlantic Alliance than the European alliance, although both are essential to our security.
A great deal has been said about United States interference. The right hon. Member for Huyton mentioned it and the right hon. Member for Basset-law (Mr. Bellenger) brought in the question of the new Commonwealth. For those of us interested in the possibilities of the United Kingdom taking independent action, as I am sure some of my hon. and right hon. Friends who object to this Motion are, I should say that it was not European countries which have voted against it or abstained at the United Nations, nor even entirely the new Commonwealth, but some members of the old Dominions too. [HON. MEMBERS: "Suez?"] I do not think the example of Suez is necessarily an inept one to address to my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton and my noble friend the Member for Dorset, South.
It has been said that democracy depends upon national sovereignty. I quite agree. That is a principle that has been stated as underlying the confederation, if one may call it that, which is proposed in Europe. We have a great deal to offer Europe and we have a great deal to gain from Europe. We have already gained much.
I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that we should look at history. It is true that we have not gained from Europe our legal system, our constitution, our monarchy, our common law, our Parliamentary democracy, but we have gained a great deal of the old Empire. South-West Africa, The Cameroons, the Cape Province, Tanganyika, Trinidad, Jamaica, Ceylon, Malta and Gibraltar all came as a result of our leading position in Europe. Even Nova Scotia and eventually upper and lower Canada became British only as a result of the Treaty of Utrecht. What we have gained through our leadership in the European alliance for the Empire we could lose for the Commonwealth by failure even to consider that leadership now, and the loss would be not only to the United Kingdom but to Europe and to the free world.
I hope that our European friends will remember this and will be willing to

meet the needs of the Commonwealth. I warn them, as I have warned them before, of the consequences of asking too much. I warn them of the difficulty which we may have of maintaining our financial commitments, and may I hope, in parenthesis, that those which we cannot maintain are only financial. I have warned them of the effect that it may have on the developments of the African countries, to which we have unfortunately given an out-dated sense of nineteenth century nationalism.
If the Commonwealth has a great contribution to make and must ask much of Europe in return, so the Commonwealth must be prepared to help, too. Our capacity to be of use to both depends upon their willingness to accept each other. The economic objections which the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition made were more than answered by his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), to whose speech I must pay my customary tribute. There is a great case to be made for the fact that our exchange position will be made easier. One cannot help but believe that capital for the development of the Commonwealth would be more readily found if the United Kingdom were a member of the Common Market. I agree with the hon. Member for Stechford that a Commonwealth Customs Union is impossible. I would go further than that and say that it is undesirable. It is imposing a limitation on Commonwealth development which we have no right to impose.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), in an interjection yesterday, quite rightly, if I may say so, pointed out the difference between associations which do not seek to interfere with our own economic planning and one which would necessarily entail limitations on freedom of action in the domestic field. But that is precisely the sort of limitation which I fear staying out of the Common Market might cause us to impose on the Commonwealth, because I do not see how we in this country can alone continue to take the ever-expanding Commonwealth production unless we have expanding markets to which we sell the finished products, including an increasing proportion of such goods that are made from the extra raw materials which we import.
We all agree with those who say that the Common Market by itself will not solve any difficulty; nor will it limit our freedom of action here any more than it is limited already by the hard facts of the situation. But it will make, I hope, the protection of the inefficient more difficult. I hope that it will show up the results of incompetence more quickly. I do not believe that it will damage either capitalist organisation or Socialist planning unless the methods of either are in reality totally inadequate to the situation, the experience and evidence of France and Germany show all this quite clearly.
There have been questions about social matters, but these have already been adequately answered. May I say a word, in her absence, about the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee). She pointed out that unemployed labour in South Italy had not reached North Italy; but still suggested that it would be rapidly imported into the United Kingdom. The dangers of isolationism are far greater than that sort of thing. Our social security, our planning and the whole of our economy are far more likely to be damaged through stagnation than by the sort of association which we contemplate in integration according to the terms of the Motion.
We have heard about the economies of scale. My right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) made that point in a debate earlier this month. I think that the almost Byzantine complexity and irrelevance of our whole economic system can be more readily adapted to the needs of the modern world inside than outside the Common Market.
I want to ask the Government some questions. The President of the Board of Trade last night referred to the initial extra strain on the balance of payments of any increased imports entering this country under lower tariffs, and the right hon. Member for Huyton pointed out, quite correctly, that at least in the short run we are likely to import much more extra than the extra we export. I agree with him. But I too hope that the long-term advantage will more than balance the short-term difficulty. So I ask whether we are not in danger of using our International Monetary Fund

resources, not to deal with the situation properly, but to hide the true difficulties which we are in from ourselves and from the world. It seems to me that if we are using this sum, which I gather is to be half in cash and half in standby resources, to add to our debt without paying off the money which we have already borrowed from the International Banks, we are merely obscuring the issue even further.
With this extra call, we can still defeat the speculator, even if our gold reserves decline; and that decline will show more clearly than in any other way our present true situation.
Nevertheless, I agree that we have to accept the competition which the Common Market will bring, but I remind the House that in the view of many hon. Members on both sides of the House we shall have to accept that competition whether we are in the Common Market or not. I, too, share the wish that our economic position were stronger. But perhaps some good may come out of this evil. It has led to warnings that we may not be able to maintain our payment commitments under N.A.T.O. arrangements, Western European Union and the Brussels Treaty. Perhaps without our economic difficulties Europe would not have heeded those warnings and would have thought that we could carry on as before. With these warnings and the difficulties which we have had over aid, there should be no doubt whatever that, whatever happens as a result of these negotiations, we shall not return to the status quo, to the situation as it now is.
I hope that this debate has shown both Europe and the Commonwealth that British commitments in both of them depend on the capacity of the United Kingdom to play a proper rôle in both. I also hope that it has assured the timorous people at home that as a great and powerful country we are still able to meet this challenge, and that our dual roles are complementary and not competitive. Of course it is not necessary for the United Kingdom to join the Common Market in the sense that the ability to swim is necessary to avoid drowning. The United Kingdom, the Commonwealth and Europe will not collapse if these negotiations fail, but I fear that failure will turn the modern world for


all concerned into a struggle which will seem all the more dreary by comparison with the great opportunities which success would bring.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: For some considerable time, hon. Members opposite have enjoyed the spectacle of divisions on this side of the House, and I hope that I may be excused for expressing some pleasure at the emergence of some differences—I put it no higher than that—on the benches opposite. While congratulating his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire (Sir D. Walker-Smith) on a brilliant speech, a sentiment with which I agree, the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) condemned him for not offering concrete proposals. The hon. Member for Halifax does not seem to have noticed that that is precisely the condemnation which some of us, at any rate, make of the Government.
In the course of the Lord Privy Seal's speech, I ventured to ask him a simple question, quite relevant to his speech. It was whether he would state precisely the conditions upon which negotiations were to proceed. His reply was astonishing. He said that it was not in the public interest to disclose the Government's intentions. What does that mean? It means that either the Government have no clear idea of what they intend to propose in the course of consultations or negotiations with the representatives of the Common Market, or that they are asking the House for a blank cheque.
In all the circumstances, the absence of all the relevant facts and particularly the apparent misunderstanding and undoubted confusion about the right interpretation of the provisions of the Treaty of Rome, I should have thought that we were justified in asking the Government to be much more precise. Like ourselves, apparently, the Government are in the dark.
Almost every speaker who has preceded me has declared that this is a momentous issue and that this subject of the possible association of the United Kingdom with the European Economic Community is vital to our interests and might have far-reaching consequences. I agree. But be it noted that the Govern-

ment are to have consultations with the European Free Trade Association, as is inevitable, with representatives of the Commonwealth Governments and, no doubt, with the representatives of other countries, perhaps the United States of America—who can tell?—and with the House of Commons, but when the negotiations have been completed, perhaps not satisfactorily, there are to be no consultations whatever with the electors of this country.
The electors are not to be allowed to express an opinion about whether the Government's policy is right and desirable in their interests. There is no question, even when the negotiations are concluded, whether satisfactorily or not, of asking the electors to state whether they accept the Government's decision. In other words, there is to be no General Election.
In conversations here and elsewhere I have heard that the suggestion that there might be a request for a popular mandate before the Government come to a definite conclusion is out of the question. After all, it is said, a referendum is impossible and is not our custom. It is argued that in a General Election it is impossible to present one single issue to the electors.
I am not so sure about that. I recall that in 1906 I attended meetings addressed by the late Bonar Law, when he was a candidate in what is now called the Gorbals division of Glasgow. All Bonar Law talked about at every one of those meetings was the question of whether the country was prepared to accept the policy of tariff reform. There was no other issue.
There have been elections much more recently when the Conservatives made certain that one subject would be debated and placed before the electors, namely, whether there should be any further measures of nationalisation. No doubt many other subjects, not quite so important, but of interest to the electors, would arise, but it is quite possible to present a vital issue, and I cannot see any reason why the Government should not give the House an assurance that, at the conclusion of negotiations and after the various consultations, the electors will be consulted.
I warn the Government that if by any mischance they decide to associate


themselves with the European Economic Community without consulting the electors, and without extracting a popular mandate, they might find themselves embroiled in considerable difficulties. I am convinced that it is hardly likely that the Government would return to the House, at any rate not with the numbers now behind them on their back benches. I do not believe that the electors are prepared to stand it.
I now turn to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson). As we expect from him, it was a cogent and closely reasoned speech, full of sound argument. I did not find, as apparently some other hon. Members believed, that he was sitting on the fence. Indeed, he demolished the Government's economic case for association with the European Economic Community. No other hon. Member during the debate has made such a devastating criticism of the Government's proposals.
Unfortunately, to my profound disappointment, he ended his speech by wishing the Government well. At one stage, I fully expected that he would turn to these back benches and say that in spite of the decision of the Labour Party the other night to place on the Order Paper an Amendment, not altogether innocuous but not very forthcoming, he would advise us to vote against the Government's Motion. Unfortunately, he did not proceed in that direction—and for a moment just now I thought my right hon. Friend was about to offer an opinion on what I was saying—

Mr. H. Wilson: Certainly—and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I am sure that he will understand and agree that when I had listed fourteen or fifteen essential conditions to be secured in the negotiations, and having pointed out how very difficult it would be to get them, in view of statements made from Europe and the United States, the least I could do was to wish the Government well.

Mr. Shinwell: I must confess that, in the circumstances, my right hon. Friend is much more generous than I am inclined to be. I only wish that I could emulate him in the presentation of arguments so cogent and devastating, but I am not an economist, and have to rely on such advice as I receive from

time to time from those who are better informed.
I ask the Government, I ask my hon. Friends, and I ask hon. Members opposite: why all this fuss and bother? Why is it necessary to associate with the European Economic Community? What has brought this about? What is the cause of it all? Is it associated with our economic decline? Is it because of gloom and despondency in Government circles? Is it because, as the Prime Minister said, it would be a tragedy if we did not associate with the E.E.C.? Is it because some hon. Members and some right hon. Members opposite have declared that if we fail to join E.E.C.—as, indeed, the hon. Member for Halifax has just declaimed, it would be a disaster?

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: No. If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I specifically said that it would not be a disaster, but would make things very much harder.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Member should have it out with the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, because the Prime Minister said—and, if I am challenged, I will read from the OFFICIAL REPORT—

Mr. John Page: Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister said:
I have always said frankly to the House that t think that the failure of these negotiations would be a tragedy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1961; Vol. 645, c. 1492.]
If I may say so, that seems to be a very different thing from failing to join the E.E.C.

Mr. Shinwell: I can only say that it is a distinction with no difference at all. If the Government proceed with the negotiations and discover that there are difficulties and obstacles in the way of association and have to report back to us, that, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, would be a tragedy. One could use a stronger word, but "tragedy" will do for me. Indeed, that is the opinion expressed over and over again by those who have in this debate supported our entry into the Common Market
Before I deal with the facts, I should like to point out that there appears to


be some difference of opinion in Government circles. Lord Hailsham, a Cabinet Minister, speaking in the economic debate in another place the other day, used these words:
…I refuse to believe that Britain is standing in the second place of the world's economy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 27th July, 1961; Vol. 233, c. 1095.]
What does that mean? Does that portend a disaster, a tragedy; that we are on the verge of bankruptcy? The noble Lord spoke in optimistic terms, in terms, indeed, of glorification of our economic standing.
Nor is his Lordship alone. The Economic Secretary, speaking in the debate on our economic situation on 26th July, used remarkable language in this context. I should like to quote him, because these are very important declarations. The hon. Gentleman said:
We have in the United Kingdom all the basic requisites for a thriving export trade on which a thriving economy must depend. Last year, the amount of net investment was almost twice as high as it was ten years ago, and this year it is expected to be up by another 7 per cent…The prospect before the United Kingdom is not, as the Opposition would have us believe, one of gloom and despondency. The outlook for the growth of world trade is good. Expanding markets for our exports are there to be exploited. Already, nearly two-fifths of the output of our manufacturing industry is sold abroad. If we had been able to devote only 1½ per cent. more of our national output to the balance of payments last year, our deficit of £344 million on current account would have been practically eliminated and another 1 per cent. would have given us a surplus of more than £200 million.
Then he used these words:
Those are the measures of the challenge which faces us. We are chided for having stated the obvious and undoubted fact that 'we have never had it so good'. All I would say to hon. Members is that, with a frank understanding of the difficulties which face us and a determination to overcome them, there is no reason why we should not keep it that way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1961; Vol. 645, c. 562.]
These are very interesting pronouncements, and indicate that in the opinion of some members, at any rate, of the Government, our economic position is not unsound; that we are not on the verge of bankruptcy; that we can hold our own, and that, with a push, a vigorous struggle and a bit of discipline, and, in particular, some effective planning and proper organisation—inspired, perhaps, by the Government themselves—

we can get on the rails again, and that we do not require to associate ourselves directly, completely and exclusively with the countries of the Six.
Only a moment or two ago I said that I was not an economist, and that I had to rely on the presentation of arguments coming from other sources. One of the arguments adduced in this debate and previous discussions on the Common Market is that unless we join the E.E.C. our export trade will diminish still further. The converse of that argument is that if we do join the Common Market our exports will increase, so I have to look for authority in that respect.
Here, perhaps, I may be allowed to digress by saying that the past few months I have received a mass of material on the subject of the Common Market, much of it unsolicited. It includes a great many letters from Conservatives all over the country who, apparently, think that I am a better Conservative than some hon. Members opposite—which is not exactly true.
Among the papers sent to me was one entitled Common Market Broad Sheet published by an organisation calling itself the "Common Market Campaign". Who pays for this, I do not know, but I notice that Lord Gladwyn is the head and front, and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) is the deputy-chairman and that the honorary treasurer is my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond)—a remarkable combination.
When some of us are accused of encouraging hon. Members opposite to take a certain line, even when we speak to them in the corridors of the House or in the Smoking Room or in the Dining Room—although some of us cannot afford to go into the Dining Room—we are called collaborators. But here we have the most effective collaboration ever known. I have read this document with great interest on the subject of exports. It states:
The only way out, now as then, lies in an increase of our exports.
I entirely agree with that. It continues:
Unless we can sell a great deal more to the outside world, we shall live in an atmosphere of restrictions and recriminations for the rest of our lives…the…Common Market will not guarantee an increase in British exports.


I urge hon. Members to note who says that. It is Lord Plowden, the Government's greatest economic expert, and Sir Geoffrey Crowther, formerly the editor of the Economist, who is now in the City of London. These people should know all about it, but, apparently, they do not believe that associating with the Common Market will lead to an increase in our exports.
I now turn to the question which transscends all others: the political issue. In the course of the short debate on the Common Market some weeks ago, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I ventured to say that everyone who understands the needs of the times recognises that we cannot isolate ourselves from Europe. We are, of course, a part of Europe. Nor can we reject some form of economic co-operation, mutual trade, bilateral arrangements and the rest of it. I have been associated with Governments and I understand the need for solving the economic and trade problems that beset this and other countries. But it is a horse of another colour when. in addition to mutual trading arrangements, we are asked to abandon what is called our sovereignty, about which term there has been a considerable amount of controversy.
I am not a lawyer and I am not, therefore, in a position to define this term accurately and to the satisfaction of hon. Members. But I understand that it means a measure of independence. I appreciate that that does not mean complete independence, for no country or individual can have that. We are all members one of another. I understand sovereignty in this sense, that we are not going to tie ourselves hand and foot to the six Governments of Europe exclusively, because that is precisely what it means.
If I understand the language of the Prime Minister's speech yesterday aright, that is what it contains, because the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the need for creating this unity in Europe economically and, eventually, politically, to resist what he called Communist expansion. I am not a Communist. I never have been and I have never associated myself with them. I have always fought them on behalf of the Labour Party. But, on the other hand, I do not want to see a

division in Europe. I do not believe that that would be a contribution to the economic prosperity of any of our countries. Nor do I believe that it is a useful contribution to the promotion of peace and disarmament. I believe that I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne ask what am I going to do about it. Let me remind him and hon. Members of what the Prime Minister has said—I will not weary the House with his actual words. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was not the intention of the Government to accept anything in the nature of federalism. There has been a good deal of controversy about this. Some hon. Members have said that the Government do not intend to shackle us politically to the Governments of the Six, that we shall abandon some sovereignty, but not to that extent. Other hon. Members are prepared to go the whole way.
Sometimes I think that it is not always a good thing that hon. Members should attend conferences under the auspices of German organisations at Konigswinter. I sometimes think that some people are rather susceptible to the blandishments of speakers who attend those conferences.
I have with me a document that is associated with the European Economic Community. It includes references to this question of a political integration. It states that a Community summit conference was due to be held on 19th May and that it was postponed, and continues:
The Foreign Ministers of the Six Community countries, meeting in Bonn early in May, decided that the committee of experts set up by the Community Summit on February 10 to make concrete proposals by May 19, for strengthening political unity among the Six, will continue its work. The Parliamentary Committee therefore proposed organic links between the new political structure and the Community Executives, which it recommended should take part in all debates on subjects concerning them, and also between it and the European Parliament.
It adds:
Looking further into the future—since nobody believed that political co-operation could be more than a starting point—the Committee envisaged the strengthening of the Community system, the merger of the three Community Executives, reinforcement of the European Parliament through direct elections and a widening of its powers…
and the final sentence states:
…and, finally, a European Government.


That is the intention. That is their object and that is what they are saying and hon. Members can talk until they are black in the face about the Rome Treaty and there being no provision for federation, but there is no doubt that from the declarations made by some of the most influential people—M. Spaak, Professor Hallstein and others who have indicated that that is a definite intention and that once we accept the economic provisions of the Rome Treaty—and it looks as though this Government might —they are on the way towards complete political integration.
I wonder what this place will be like during the course of the next ten years. There will not be 630 hon. Members. There will be no need for more than 150 or so. It will be like—

Mr. A. C. Manuel: A council.

Mr. Shinwell: —I was about to say a parish council, with authority of some kind delegated to it by the European Parliament and dictated to by a European Government. To that we are being led.
Is Britain facing such an economic disaster that we cannot rise above it? I do not believe a word of it. I agree that there are difficulties facing us now, yet little is said about the fact that the present Government is responsible. Is it a world problem? That is what they used to say about the Labour Party, when there was unemployment. It was the philosophy of the Labour Party, we were told. This Government have no philosophy or any policy.
Some say that it would be a tragedy if we did not go into the Common Market. Others say that it would mean disaster if we did not associate ourselves economically and even politically with Europe. All we get from the Government is some talk about reducing Surtax, increasing Purchase Tax, borrowing from the International Monetary Fund, exhorting manufacturers to export more, without any incentives of any sort or kind. That is what we get from the Government. If that is all they can do, I fear for this country. We may associate ourselves with the Common Market and at the end of the day discover that we are a cipher in the hands of the de Gaulles, the Spaaks

and the President Kennedys. We shall not have the right to call our soul or our body our own.

7.51 p.m.

Sir Anthony Hurd: The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has worked himself into a high state of indignation about the possibility of complete political integration, suggesting that we shall be a mere cog in the European machine. I wonder whether he really listened yesterday to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who made a magnificent speech and covered that possibility fully.
I am not an enthusiastic Common Marketeer. My lifelong interest has been in British agriculture and farming in the Commonwealth. Perhaps that has made me rather suspicious of European politicians and their designs. But those of us who have this instinct cannot ignore the erosion of the cold war that Communism is waging in Europe and throughout the free world. How can that be met? Can we meet it effectively by trying to build upon unity in Europe as well as with the United States and, of course, with the Commonwealth? I have come to the conclusion that we must try to make that effort, that it is worth while and our duty.
I want to say a word particularly about one industry to which the Prime Minister devoted a lot of attention yesterday, and that is our agriculture and agriculture in the Commonwealth. We were told an hour or two ago, from the benches opposite, that only four seats in the House of Commons were decided by a majority of agriculturists. That may or may not be true. I do not think it matters. But I am sure that agriculture is a vitally important and fundamental industry to us, as, indeed, it is to the Commonwealth.
I want to underline what the Prime Minister said yesterday. I think that we are all agreed about the objective. He said:
Our objective is to have a prosperous, stable and efficient agricultural industry, organised to provide a good life for those who live and work in the countryside."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1961; Vol. 645, c. 1487.]
So far our price support system, backed by production grants, has worked well for producers and consumers in this country. The policy was begun in a time of food shortage. Today, we are running into a


time of food surpluses. It could be continued, even if those food surpluses were to press still more heavily on the United Kingdom market, the great food market of the world, if the Exchequer were prepared to meet unlimited calls for deficiency payments to home producers, or if the Board of Trade were prepared to be really tough and rigid in excluding dumped supplies of produce unloaded here. We could take that line. But will we? Can we? Is it practicable for us to say that that will be our policy in future—the United Kingdom alone? I doubt it.
This is the great open food market of the world—the biggest buyer of food in the world. Can we, as a great trading nation, say that we are going to shut out supplies offered to us? It might be that we should be strong enough to do that, but we have not shown much sign of it. We have lately had a lot of trouble with dumped Russian barley. That may have some significance as an example of erosion by Russian policy in the economic field.
Now we should see whether we can make a better deal for British agriculture and the agriculture of the Commonwealth by seeking terms of entry to the Common Market in Europe. Put simply, can we find more effective protection inside the Common Market, ringed round with safety measures for agricultural communities that are at best no more efficient than we are?
I think that we need, in these negotiations, to be quite clear about the safeguards. Here, I must differ from my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), because it seems to me that in his Amendment he is agreeing to the Government Motion and saying, "Go ahead and negotiate. See what terms you get, but we do not trust you Ministers to bring back terms that we can approve." Surely, if we believe that the approach is worth making, we must trust Ministers to go out and get the best possible terms not only for us in this island, but for the Commonwealth and our E.F.T.A. partners. Then the House of Commons will decide. That is the only way to proceed in this business, and I shall have no doubt about supporting the Government tonight.
In this matter of agriculture, which so vitally affects a large section of the community here as well as in the Commonwealth, European countries employ a variety of protective devices to suit their own kinds of agriculture and their own standards. The declared purpose of the European Economic Community policy, in broad terms, is very much the same as ours. It is true that our own farming organisations, the English National Farmers' Union and the National Union of Agricultural Workers, have both, at the first look, said, "We do not want to have anything to do with the Common Market".
I am glad to see that since Ministerial statements have been made in this House the N.F.U. has said:
British farmers and growers will be ready to examine all suggestions for a reconciliation of policies.
I am sure that that is the only sensible and constructive line to take. Eventually, it may be that the tariffs which the E.E.C. countries have and the production grants and possibly the price supports which we largely use can be combined into an effective policy. Meanwhile, as the Prime Minister said, we shall continue with the price supports and deficiency payments which are written into the Agriculture Acts of 1947 and 1957.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I agree that the members of the Six use both tariffs and other means of control, but I hope that my hon. Friend will also remember that they use minimum price machinery, which is particularly important for horticulture.

Sir A. Hurd: I was coming to that point.
Today, we have in our country an agriculture which is a model for the rest of Europe. We had been able to earn a comparatively high standard of living, and that goes for our farm workers, too. Our output per man is almost the highest in Europe, and our net output of food as compared with pre-war days has increased by as much as 72 per cent.—a great record.
We have something to offer Europe in this, and I think that we might combine our policies with theirs to our mutual


advantage. If we have the right conditions for our agriculture and fair competition, particularly having regard to labour earnings and costs of production, I shall not fear for the future of British agriculture.
We shall need an annual review of the net income and prospects of our industry to make sure that we are not dragged down in the process of making a common agricultural policy for Europe. That would be no more good for Europe than it would be for us. It will be, I think, at least eight or ten years before some of the European countries can attain our standard of living for their rural communities. We must not go beyond the transitional period until it is clear that farming costs, including labour earnings, throughout Europe allow fair competition in a really common market.
I regard as most important that we should, during the transition period, devise and use effective machinery for the control of imports which threaten price stability in the United Kingdom. This is necessary in the interests of our farmers and farm workers and even more in the interests of the Exchequer here and of our Commonwealth partners. Our Commonwealth partners, particularly New Zealand and Australia, depend on steady prices here for their main products. We owe that to them while we are feeling our way into a Common Market in Europe.
If we are to carry the Commonwealth with us, we must not agree to take even the first steps towards the Common Market unless we reserve powers to maintain a steady market here, with, of course, full preferences to Commonwealth countries over any other overseas supplier. We want that written into any ultimate deal which we can do with the E.E.C. countries. We must make quite plain that this is how the operation should work as we see it, and, if it is not going to work in that way, we can go no further with it.
We must be quite determined to maintain a fully productive agriculture here. I do not say that merely as one representing an agricultural constituency. I suppose that all our constituencies change in time, and mine is not wholly agricultural today. I believe that to be a vital consideration for our country. In negotiations we must bear in mind particularly

the crops which ensure that the land is kept in good trim and good heart. This means that we must look to the grain crops, potatoes, sugar beet and the main field vegetable crops, and also to the products of grass, that is, lamb, beef and milk.
That is a wide range, but in all of it we are very nearly competitive with European production on a fair pegging in terms of labour costs, fuel oil and the other essential costs going into modern food production. If we could get on to a common level of price and costs of production with a common level of labour standards, which means a considerable rise for most agricultural communities in Europe, I should not fear their competition.
Horticulture in the Common Market will cause some headaches, not only for us who are farthest away from the sun of the Mediterranean. We have an efficient though small horticulture industry, but I think that we shall, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) suggested, have to use the kind of import control measures which the Northern European countries use today to protect their horticulture industries. I see no reason why we should not be able to compete with Holland in the growing of tomatoes if we have the same labour costs and the same fuel costs. If we cannot compete, that will be too bad for our glasshouse industry here; but I believe that we can, once we get on to a common level of costs, and, as I say, a comparable standard of living which, for most of Europe, will be a good deal higher than it is today.
We in the United Kingdom must not relax our health standards either for animals or for crops. We have established high standards here. All our herds are attested now; we do not have foot-and-mouth disease; we are dealing with swine fever, and so on. We must not jeopardise what we have attained, and what Europe needs to attain, by allowing free entry to farm products from countries which have not as clean a bill of health as we have.
I regard those as essential safeguards for British agriculture as we enter talks with the European Economic Community. If we can reach agreement on


satisfactory terms to protect our agriculture and, with it, the temperate products of Commonwealth agriculture, well and good. We shall see how we get on before we commit ourselves to a real Common Market with a free exchange of produce all round.
I add this final word. If the countries of Europe want us to join them, it will be for what we are and for what we can contribute not only in expanding trade, but in leadership and unity of political purpose in Europe. We shall be of little value to them or to the rest of the free world if we lose our identity in Europe. The Prime Minister said this in better words yesterday, and I believe it to be true. I feel sure that Ministers will not return to the House with proposals that justify the fears expressed this evening by the right hon. Member for Easington. They have enough political gumption to know that the House and the country would not stand for it. We should he offering nothing of value to Europe or to the free world if we accepted that line of approach.
My hope is that, out of the decision we are to take tonight, there will come opportunities for Britain to build a bridge between the E.E.C. and the Common wealth. If our conditions for entering the E.E.C. are rejected, the world will not come to an end for us. We shall find our way with the Commonwealth, hut, somehow, I feel that both Europe and the Commonwealth will want us.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Holt: Time is marching on and there are still several hon. Members who wish to speak. I shall try to make my remarks as brief as possible and not to duplicate arguments that we have already considered. The hon. Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd) will, I hope, excuse me if I do not follow him in agricultural matters. They were discussed at great length in our debate on agriculture about a month ago. Although the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) is not here, I believe that some of those who think like him are, and I wish to take up one or two points which the right hon. Gentleman made.
Given the views he holds, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to

vote against the Government tonight. In my judgment, everyone who takes his view should do the same. Those who think in that way really have no part to play in the Europe of the Six, which may become the Seven or the Eight. They will be going into the Community with ideas completely opposed to those which inspire the Six. The right hon. Gentleman asked for certain assurances from the Lord Privy Seal. I do not know whether Ministers will choose to reply directly on those points, but I am quite sure that they could not possibly give such assurances and, at the same time, bring negotiations with the Six to a successful conclusion, except in regard to the one point which the right hon. Gentleman made about not destroying the political concepts of the Commonwealth.
It would be utterly dishonest to give an assurance that never will we enter a federal Europe and that there will be no change in agricultural policy and to say that we are entering into negotiations with the Six in good faith. One could not help feeling that throughout the right hon. Gentleman's speech and that of many other hon. Members what they were complaining of was that they objected to exchanging the sovereignty which they consider we have lost to the President of the United States for a loss of sovereignty to Europe. There is a sort of anti-Americanism running through their speeches. They have a kind of mystic attachment to the Imperial Preference, this great red herring which has so distorted much Commonwealth trade over the last generation.
One was also left with the feeling that it was quite hopeless to argue with the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members and to put the European case. The right hon. Gentleman was obviously completely out of tune with the feelings, fears and aspirations of Europeans, in marked contrast to the excellent speech of the Lord Privy Seal. It is a long time, if ever in the ten years that I have been a Member of this House, since I have been in such unanimity with a speech made from the Dispatch Box opposite. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has imparted the confidence which he gave me in his ability to handle negotiations with the Six to the members of the


Six. His speech augurs well for those negotiations.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister used language which made sense, and he gave some substantial reasons for our going into the E.E.C. Why in the world did not a British Prime Minister make that speech many years ago? It was clear from his speech that the right hon. Gentleman did not consider that any of the circumstances relating to our going into the Common Market had altered in the last few years but that there had merely been, as it were, developments—for instance, the very existence of the E.E.C. and its extraordinary success.
I agreed with the beginning of the speech of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) and with a great deal of what he said later. In the middle of it, however, he seemed to play down the work, enthusiasm and interest of the Assembly of the Six and of the Council of Ministers. It is only fair to say that the setting up of the Six was considered a near miracle by many people. The distance which they have already travelled compared with any similar political adventure in the last 100 years must also be considered a miracle on any count. It was a tremendous act of faith on the part of a number of nations who were put into difficult straits during and after the war.
It is terrible that one should hold the view obviously held by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) who described the Six as a group of nations who had lost faith in themselves, who were down and out and, therefore, wished to get together in one community. As I say, what they did was a wonderful act of faith, and it is something greatly to their credit and not something to be scornfully derided.
There was one point in the Prime Minister's speech to which I wish to draw attention. It concerns the question of federalism or confederalism, or neither. The Prime Minister said
The alternative concept, the only practical concept, would be a confederation…"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1961; Vol. 645, c. 1491.]
The Leader of the Opposition also appeared to attack the idea that we could ever have anything to do with federalism.

He was extremely vehement about it, but, if one reads in HANSARD what he said, he indicated that that question must be left open. With that I entirely agree. Whatever form politically Europe finally develops into, this is something about which we must keep an open mind. We do not know how quickly it may develop, but we should be quite wrong to enter these negotiations with prejudged ideas that on no account will we ever have anything to do with federalism.
I am not arguing for federalism. All I am saying is that if we go in the spirit which, for instance, M. Spaak indicated the other day when he said, "Is Britain sincere?", we must be ready to help to develop the Six which may become larger in ways which the circumstances of the time require. On no account should we prejudge this issue.
I now wish to say a word or two about the Commonwealth. I wish to ask the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government are still negotiating on the basis of what he said at the Western European Union Assembly in February, which was repeated in the House on 17th May, when he said:
…we could then consider a system based on a common or harmonised tariff on raw materials and manufactured goods imported from countries other than the Six, the Seven or the Commonwealth."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th May, 1961; Vol. 640, c. 1392.]
That clearly meant that the common tariff was to be outside Commonwealth trade coming into the United Kingdom. Is that still the position? This would be a great alteration in the Treaty of Rome. As I understand it, to comply with the Treaty of Rome, unless the Commonwealth countries were to become members, either under Article 237 or Article 238—and most of them I assume are not—they would be outside the common tariff. If the E.F.T.A. countries joined they certainly would be within it. I have been assuming recently that the Commonwealth, with the exception possibly of some of the African territories, would be outside the common tariff.
The way in which the Government and, presumably, the Six hope to get over the anti-preference that this would result in is by re-negotiating some of the levels of the common tariff, which would particularly affect Commonwealth trade.


For instance, it has been suggested that they would be willing that the duty on tea should be nothing and that the duty on perhaps Canadian aluminium and newsprint should be nothing. If the Lord Privy Seal can clear up this point, or can invite his right hon. Friend the Minister of Commonwealth Relations to do so when he winds up, I shall be greatly obliged. I think it is an important point, and one which would clear up a great deal of misunderstanding about the possible scope which the Government will have in the negotiations.
The other point that I should like to make about the Commonwealth is that it seems to me that some of those who have been describing the dangers to the Commonwealth at one moment say what a wonderful thing the Commonwealth is, what a great power and influence it is in the world, a great power for peace, linking people of different colours and different interests in Africa, Asia and the like. They say it is one of the things that we must keep in being, because it is one of the ways in which we can get between the two blocs of East and West, and so on. Then, at the same time, it is suggested that this wonderful Commonwealth is suddenly to be undermined because we decide to remove a 10 per cent. preference on the trade of some member, or even put a tariff on Australian wheat.
If that is really what is suggested, those who say that cannot have it both ways. The Commonwealth must be in a rickety state. If that is so why do we go on with it if, simply in the process of some mammoth negotiations, we could destroy it by some tariffs being put up against some Commonwealth goods. The point about negotiations regarding the Commonwealth is that we want to see that, by and large, When these negotiations are finished, Commonwealth trade with Europe, including the United Kingdom, has the possibility of being at least as great as it was before, and, if possible, greater. Do not let us start examining the matter in detail and say, "We have given away this and that; how terrible; the whole Commonwealth will fall to pieces." I do not think it makes sense.
There is much else that I should like to say, but I will close by referring to

the Liberal Party's addendum to the Government Motion on the Order Paper. I do not propose to elaborate it, because we have said quite a lot about it in the past, but I think that this is a terribly important matter for this country and for hon. Members of this House. Let there be no doubt about it. If we sign the Rome Treaty in the way in which I think eventually we shall have to do, there will be a serious diminution of sovereignty of this House and of the powers of Members of Parliament here directly to influence affairs, which will impinge an their own constituents. I do not see how any Member of Parliament can go back to his constituency and say on this Thursday night, "I am sorry, I have no views; I did not know whether I should go into this Lobby or that."
It may be that on other matters it is perfectly reasonable for an official Opposition to take up the position that it is not responsible for Government action, but I feel that this matter is so important for Europe and for our position in Europe that if we are to go in, those who vote for going in should know pretty clearly in their own minds that they are in sympathy with what the Six are trying to do. Those who oppose it do not like that kind of idea at all and will have nothing to do with it. They are perfectly within their rights, and I am sure that they would be quite wrong if they did not carry their views into the Division Lobby.
It is well-known that the Liberal Party is in favour of going into the Common Market. We do not think that there will be half the difficulties in making the necessary arrangements which many people think there will be, but it would be a tragedy if these negotiations are drawn out for a long time. I think that most of the problems can be settled quite quickly. We have been out for too long. I hope that the negotiations are carried through speedily, and that soon we shall be members of the European Economic Community.

8.26 p.m.

Sir Robert Grimston: I believe that the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) belongs to a party which says, "Sign the Treaty of Rome and talk afterwards." Bearing that in mind, when at the opening of his remarks he said after the speech of my night hon.


Friend the Lord Privy Seal that he thought he would conduct the negotiations in the way in which the hon. Gentleman wanted them conducted, that filled me with more misgivings than I had already.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Leader of the Liberal Party six weeks ago asked the Prime Minister to apply for membership under Article 237—not to sign the Treaty of Rome, but to apply for membership. He was told that it was quite impossible. That is our approach.

Sir R. Grimston: That intervention does not seem to be particularly relevant to what I am saying.
This debate has been one of the most sustained and momentous which I remember in this House for many a long year. One thing we should realise is that in our vote tonight we are not being asked to take a decision on going into the Common Market or about the conditions that we should accept. What we are being asked to do is to set the whole process in motion.
I have been long enough in politics and in this House to know that once we start off the momentum is such that we are very likely to find ourselves being taken far further than we originally intended unless we lay down fairly stringent conditions at the beginning. It is a well-known technique—the softening-up process. The House is told, "You have not got to agree to it now; you just say 'Let us have talks'." That goes on for a bit, and a little later on the Government say, "This has turned out rather differently to what we thought; it is a very serious matter." A three-line Whip is put on and they go still further.
Quite frankly, it is my fear that something of this sort is happening now on this question which makes me take up my present attitude.
What troubles me is that these talks may gather such momentum that they may take us much further than many of us would wish to go, and that if that happens we shall be faced, possibly, with bringing down the Government, which is a position we need not have got into if only we had made a stand now.
During this debate, we have heard a good deal about sovereignty. I shall be brief because other hon. Members wish to speak, but I must remind the House of what my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said about this in 1959. He said:
…we must recognise that for us to sign the Treaty of Rome would be to accept as the ultimate goal, political federation in Europe, including ourselves."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1959; Vol. 599, c. 1382.]
The hon. Member for Bolton, West has given his opinion, which is completely on all fours with that. Neither have I heard during this debate anything to gainsay that in ten, twenty or thirty years time that may be what happens. If it happens, it is quite inconsistent with our being the focal point of the Commonwealth.
The process of the change from Empire to Commonwealth is still going on. There are some who think that we are on the threshold of the disintegration of the Commonwealth. We have seen what has happened with South Africa and there have been remarks by certain Commonwealth Prime Ministers behind the Iron Curtain. I do not take that view. I cherish the hope that this unique association of nations, embracing every race in the world and the greatest diversification of geography that one can imagine, will increase and progress and become a greater influence in the world.
We should not, however, forget that its cohesion is based to some extent on mystique, on sentiment, on the memory of two great wars, when the Commonwealth rallied to us, and on such examples as the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) quoted this afternoon when New Zealand, at any expense, came to our help shortly after the war. It is a terrible thing if all that is to be forgotten and we are simply to pursue a link with Europe because we think that it will be better for our economy.
Apart from the sentiment and the mystique, the Commonwealth is, and can be, held together also by economics. If it is to be damaged by economic and political arrangements with Europe, it is a course that I cannot follow, particularly since, it seems to me, no great effort has yet been made to get to grips with reorganising the Ottawa Agreements or attempting to revise G.A.T.T.


We are entering these negotiations having made no attempt to revise G.A.T.T. or to revise the Ottawa Agreements. We may well damage the links with the Commonwealth to an extent which may be quite disastrous.
The addendum to the Motion which some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have put on the Order Paper asks that the proposals which are brought back to the House following the negotiations shall contain no proposals
involving a material derogation of British sovereignty or an implied undertaking to proceed to political union or federation or which are in any other way inconsistent with the continuance by the United Kingdom of its traditional rôle in the Commonwealth".
Let us turn that the other way round. Suppose that the Government brought back proposals for a material derogation of British sovereignty with implied undertakings to proceed to political union—which, judging from what has been said in this debate, must be the case if we sign the Treaty of Rome—or which otherwise are inconsistent with the continuance of the United Kingdom in its traditional rôle. Would the House accept that? I hope not. The position that we who have tabled the addendum take is that this is the time when that should be made clear, both to the country and, in fairness, to the Six.
If the Government can tell us that were it not for the procedural difficulty they would accept our addendum—and from what has been said in the speeches, I think that they could—I should feel happier. But I must say this quite definitely, as far as I am concerned, unless I can get that assurance I cannot support the Government in the Lobby tonight. I come back to where I started, because I believe that, although, as I say, we are only voting so to speak tonight to start negotiations, we are setting the whole process in train, and I believe that this is the moment when we should say both to the world and to ourselves, so far will we go and no farther. If we do not do that, I fear great misunderstandings in the future and great damage to the Commonwealth.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: The speech of the hon. Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston), to whom we have just listened, gives further evidence of what, I believe, must be the case, that

the Government must be extremely dissatisfied by the course of this debate. I think that the majority of the speeches on both sides of the House have been against them.
The most effective speech for the Government was that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), but even he is not going to vote for the Government. Hon. Members on the other side have delivered speeches such as have not been heard from the Conservative back benches in debates in this House since the overthrow of the Chamberlain Government, in 1940. Therefore, I would have thought that anyone listening to the debate—of course, I am prejudiced in this sense—would have thought that the weight of the argument has been against the Government—particularly when we heard, for example, the powerful speech delivered against the Government's Motion by the President of the Board of Trade last night.
Certainly, the speech which the President of the Board of Trade delivered was a very different one from the speech of the Lord Privy Seal, however mollifying and persuasive he may have been today. The face which the Government present to Europe is that of the Lord Privy Seal the face which they present to the Commonwealth is in some respects that of the President of the Board of Trade. But I can understand why they did not send him abroad as one of their missionaries. If they had sent him as one of the missionaries most of the members of the Commonwealth would have said, "If this is your case, that you feel we can perfectly well stay out of the Common Market, what are you here for?"
Therefore, there is a conflict in the way the Government have presented the case to the House. I think that the Government have been wise in one respect. The Lord Privy Seal himself said at the beginning of his speech, and other spokesmen for the Government, including the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) yesterday, and others who have spoken, have, many of them, not put the most weight on the merits of our entry or non-entry into the Common Market, but have fallen back on the protection of saying, "We are not asking you to vote for that now. All we


are asking you to vote for is whether we should enter into negotiations at all." In some respects, the Opposition have accepted the same point of view.
In my opinion, that is a profound misconception about the meaning of this debate. The real decision as to whether this country is to go into the Common Market will be made tonight. It will not be made some months hence. I say that for this reason. I will try to explain why I think that.
Suppose the Government go into these negotiations and find that they can secure no concessions whatever. I imagine that even this Government will come back to us and say, "We cannot go ahead with the proposition." So the House of Commons will not come into the matter at all. It will be turned down.
But suppose that what happens is what the Lord Privy Seal hopes, as he described perfectly honestly to the House today, that the Government, after a series of bargains and compromises, get some arrangement and reach the end of the negotiations and come back to the House and propose that we should ratify it, as the Government admit in their Motion, or say that we must accept it even before ratification, it will be difficult for the House to reject the arrangement.
It will be very difficult, indeed. In effect the House of Commons will be confronted with a fait accompli. All the arguments used by the most passionate supporters of our going into the Common Market, who say that we shall suffer great difficulties and dangers—that it will be a tragedy, as the 'Prime Minister said, if it does not go through—will be multiplied tenfold when we are presented with the final result of the negotiations.
Therefore, I say that whatever views hon. Members may take on one side or the other about this matter it is misleading to suggest that the vote tonight is merely on the question whether we should start distant discussions, or even early discussions. The decision that will be taken by the House tonight is really on whether we want and intend to enter the Common Market or not.
The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) made a powerful speech in putting his case—a different case from mine—against entering the

Common Market. After such a speech, and holding the views that he does, he was quite right in saying that he could not possibly vote for the Government on that basis. People have talked about being pushed or driven into Europe by President Kennedy or somebody else. What would be much more undignified would be if we were "whipped" into Europe.
I should like to consider some of the statements made in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition yesterday and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), in his speech today. The Leader of the Opposition produced a whole series of demands for protections and reservations and qualifications that should be made in the Treaty of Rome and the negotiations that are to take place. Very powerful demands they were, too.
The Leader of the Opposition not only made demands about E.F.T.A., about the Commonweatlh and about British agriculture, but he made demands about the movement of capital, he made demands about the investment fund; he made demands about the social fund; he made demands about the voting processes; he made demands about indirect taxation; he made demands about all this series of matters; and he reiterated the demands made in other quarters to have absolute protection for E.F.T.A. and the Commonwealth.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) insisted upon this point and demanded that, equally, we should have protection for the Commonwealth and E.F.T.A.

Mr. G. Brown: I have not spoken in the debate.

Mr. M. Foot: I mean at Question Time. My right hon. Friend has asked that the Government should provide similar protections.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton today added some further demands and reservations which should be required. People may argue whether it is right or not, but he considered that there would have to be substantial changes in the Treaty of Rome if we were to be able to carry through our own Socialist programme if we had a


Labour Goverment here. Moreover, he went ahead and listed some of the enormous breaches there would have to be in the common external tariff of the Common Market if it was to be acceptable to the Labour Party.
I am in favour of all these demands, but if we add them all up, these protections, these qualifications and modifications of the Common Market system, there is little left at all of the Common Market conception. My right hon. Friends seem to be saying that we would be in favour of entering the Common Market as long as the adjustments are so great that there is no real Common Market left at all.
One of my hon. Friends said that he wanted to see our country playing in the European first league. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton and the Leader of the Opposition seem to be saying, "Yes, we wish to enter the West European football league as long as we can have full consultations with the M.C.C. so that the rules of the game are so altered that it resembles cricket." My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton says afterwards, incontrovertibly, that we would be in a better position to face the game if we were doing better in the Tests, and if the once so confident captain had not been bowled round his legs for a duck so recently.
If the situation is that the Opposition are prepared to agree to enter into the Common Market only if the whole of this long list of amendments and qualifications are accepted, I cannot understand how they take the further step and say, "Yes, although we know of these perils and dangers and all that they may do to our capital account, we are prepared to trust the present Administration to conduct these highly perilous negotiations."
Do they say that? They wish them well. That is the meaning of their apparent decision not to vote against the main proposal. It is all the more remarkable, moreover, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton dropped the hint that he thought that the Prime Minister had made up his mind about it already—to go in, anyhow. How can he have confidence in voting for a Government that he distrusts to such a

degree to carry out negotiations which he believes will be so dangerous?
All the arguments have been gone over. I wish only to insist that I do not believe the Lord Privy Seal answered at all the arguments about sovereignty and about the political implications that have been debated. I do not agree with what has been said by hon. Members who oppose the Government on this matter about sovereignty. I am in favour of international organisations. But we are perfectly entitled to ask whether the international organisation is a proper one. The Holy Alliance was an international organisation, but it was not a good one. Hitler's New Order was an international organisation of some form or another.
I can understand some of my hon. Friends being very enthusiastic about ideas of federalism. It is a perfectly reputable thing. But it should be remembered that even in the case of the most worthy forms of federation or confederation there has always been an argument between the powers of the federation and the protection of democratic rights of the individual bodies joining it. This was the classical argument between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson in the United States of America. I believe, as was admitted candidly by the spokesman of the Liberal Party—no one will accuse him of not having read the Treaty of Rome—that it will mean a great diminution of the power and authority of this Parliament and the House of Commons. Surely we should only agree to that if the case for doing it is overwhelming, and, certainly, it has not been presented as overwhelming in this debate. That is the reason why some of us, not all of us, put down a much stronger Amendment criticising the Government's action than any of the others.
The Prime Minister said that there is an east wind blowing and that we must get under the same cloak. Of course, this is the paramount reason why the move was started in Europe towards the Common Market, and I believe that that is the paramount reason why the Prime Minister is so eager to get into it now. We have great fears. Some of the fears were expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) and others. Even before we have got into


the Common Market, the attempt by the Government to do so has injured our independent political influence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper, speaking in the foreign affairs debate, were pleading with the Government the other night, quite rightly, I think, to resuscitate the proposals for disengagement in Europe, for areas where there should be arms control and that we should try to get areas of controlled disarmament, and the rest, under the Rapacki Plan. What a hope to ask the Government to press for this kind of plan when the Government are trying to get Dr. Adenauer to reduce the terms to get into the Common Market. How does the Labour Party think that the British Government can speak out on questions like Bizerta when we have to have General de Gaulle's good will as well?
So, even before we get into the Common Market, our policies are injured. Indeed, the greatest issue of our time is not whether we are to have trading relations, important though they are, and not even the survival of the Commonwealth, vital as that is. The most important issue of our time is not whether we can seek reconciliation between Germany and France, though we welcome it when it happens. It is whether there may be reconciliation between East and West. Upon that the lives of all of us depend.
I remember that in 1959—I think that he was quite right to do so—the Prime Minister went to Moscow about a crisis over Berlin. The reason was, he said, that the Berlin crisis was too dangerous to be allowed to drift. Does he think that the Berlin situation is more dangerous or less dangerous today? But today, because of the distraction and obsession of the Government with the Common Market, they are failing to give any leadership on even greater issues which will decide whether there will be a world at all.
I say, therefore, in conclusion, that although the primary responsibility in this matter rests with the Government, it also rests on us all. I believe profoundly that our votes tonight will decide whether this project goes ahead. I do not think that it sufficient for a great

party like the Labour Party to say on such an issue, "Although we shall state our views clearly and state our reservations, we shall not vote one way or the other on whether we shall have trust and belief in this Government's capacity to carry out such a dangerous enterprise." I do not believe that to be sufficient.
Indeed, I think that the posture of the Leader of the Opposition in the debate yesterday was a kind of variation on the famous words once used by Martin Luther, and which are now being quoted in a great play in London. What my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition seemed to be saying was, "Here I stand, but if need be I can do otherwise. I must abstain, so help me God, Amen." That, I believe, is not sufficient for a great party. It is not a sufficient comment try a great party on a great issue, particularly when I believe that this is the last chance which hon. Members of this House will have to discharge their full responsibility in this historic matter.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: I shall be referring to most of the things that were said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) during my speech. Some of them—even for my hon. Friend—were a distortion of the position which we have adopted. I was struck by the number of times he said that he agreed with what has been said in this debate. The only conclusion I can come to is that he agrees with everything said but that he disagrees with the logical corollary of what we have said. When he described us as playing soccer and getting mixed up with the M.C.C.. I felt that the real trouble was that he was playing rugby and could not therefore understand the rules of either game.
Everyone who has listened to the debate will agree that this is one of the few occasions when a debate which everyone thought in advance would be a good one, has in fact turned out to be just exactly that. We have been debating a vital subject, but we have not, of course, been debating it on the vital day. That vital day has yet to come, and it will come when a number of other things have happened in between. That does not make the subject any less vital, but let us get clear what is the time-scale.
It is inevitable that the difficulties and problems should be emphasised from this side of the House and the necessary warnings sounded all through the debate. Because it has fallen to the lot of hon. Members on this side of the House—and properly so, I do not complain about it—to sound these alarms, it may have appeared to some people as if we were overstating them and almost stating them in isolation. That is a difficulty which we cannot avoid, because clearly such warnings must come from hon. Members on these benches when hon. Members opposite adopt the position which they have adopted.
There are many people, both inside this House and outside, who feel deeply on all these problems, and are uncertain about the line they should take. In what I have to say I must inevitably repeat some of the warnings and, because of that, I should like to start by repeating what has already been said by my right hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) and Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson). We wish the negotiations well. We are not hoping for failure. Indeed, if a treaty could be brought back which met our reasonable demands, we would welcome participation in a Europe which would then be outward-looking and in a position to be a bridge with the East and to enable aid from the older industrial countries to the new emergent countries to be given on a much larger scale than it is at the moment.
But wishing the negotiators well is quite a different thing from having any confidence in them to do the job well. There has been such a vast change of heart, not on interpretation, not on conclusion—that can happen to any of us over a few years in this House as I well know—but such a vast change in their declaration of what the basic facts are, that one cannot at this stage feel very much confidence in them being any more accurate today than they were a few years ago. It does not even seem that they are really agreed as to what the E.E.C. is. The Prime Minister, speaking yesterday, said:
I must remind the House that the E.E.C. is an economic community, not a defence alliance or a foreign policy community. It is an economic community."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd Aug., 1961; Vol. 645, c. 1490].

That is not what Ministers were saying a short time ago. For example, only a short while ago—this has been quoted, but I refer to it again—the President of the Board of Trade was saying:
Finally, we must recognise that the aim of the main proponents of the Community is political integration…
But he went on to say:
The whole idea of the Six, the Coal and Steel Community and Euratom is a movement towards political integration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1959; Vol. 599, c. 1382.]
That is a fine aspiration, but we must recognise that for us to sign the Treaty of Rome would be to accept as the ultimate goal political federation in Europe, including ourselves. This is a fundamental change, but the right hon. Gentleman still sits there. He still speaks in this debate. He spoke last night. He wound up with words which implied that he still thought this, yet the Prime Minister says the whole thing is completely and unutterably different from what he says it is. We cannot have a lot of confidence in negotiators who are not agreed at the beginning about what they are negotiating on.
We are entitled to ask the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations tonight to set out clearly and to tell us clearly what he, speaking for the Government solemnly and responsibly at the end of this debate, believes the political commitments and the political intentions of the Community really are. I shall speak for myself. I have long believed that the political commitments are far less than they are often assumed to be. I think the federalists, some of whom have been quoted today, in their speeches overstate what the position in the Treaty is, but the fact that I think that does not really deal with the position. We ought to know on what basis the Government are negotiating.
I wish to say one thing which I think has not been said. The House ought to bear in mind that if we, Denmark and Norway join, there will be a very substantial change in the composition of the European Economic Community. I say to many of my hon. Friends that it is interesting that so many of our Socialist friends—indeed, all our Socialist friends in Europe—clearly want us in. I think that one of the reasons why they want us in is the change there would


be in the composition of the Community when we all three went in. Another reason is that it would be a very much better guarantee of the kind of economic and social policy followed by the Community than the policy followed at the moment.
Having said that, it is nonsense, I believe, to pretend as the Prime Minister did yesterday, that there are no political elements in the Community. He said that it is not a foreign policy alliance. Look at the communiqué which was published from Bad Godesburg a week or two ago, when the Six had a meeting. Think of the regular Foreign Ministers' meetings, the proposals which they are making for Heads of State regularly to meet, and the proposals which they discussed with the Italians for majority voting on foreign policy. Clearly the Prime Minister went very much too far in saying that there are no political commitments.
When I was in Europe with the Leader of the Opposition this week-end I discussed this subject with people of some authority in the Community. One of the most powerful men in the movement—and I am fairly sure that I am quoting him exactly—said, "If you are coming in believing that this is no more than an economic arrangement, we would much rather that you did not come in." While the case for federalism may be over-stated, we say to the Prime Minister, "You are under-playing it enormously in pretending, as you did the other day, that it has no political overtones. If you go in under this impression you will not get the negotiations right from the beginning, and we ought to warn you at the start."
Equally, we must get clear the economic consequences. They may be heavier, they may be less, than has been suggested, but we must get them clear, and they do not come out clearly from what the Ministers have told us. Let us see what the Prime Minister said yesterday:
It is, of course, argued, and with deep sincerity, that by associating more closely with Europe in this new economic grouping we should injure the strength of the Commonwealth. If I thought this, I would not, of course, recommend this Motion to the House.
A little later he said:
I ask myself the question: how can we best serve the Commonwealth? By standing

aside from the movement for European unity, or by playing our full part in its development?
A little later he said:
It would, therefore, be wrong in my view to regard our Commonwealth and our European interests as conflicting. Basically, they must be complementary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1961; Vol. 645, c. 1484–85.]
What he then said does not agree with what he said when, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he spoke in the House on 26th November, 1956. If he likes I can read all of it, but it does not seem necessary. He set out his conclusions about what going into the Community would mean for Commonwealth trade, and what it meant to the Commonwealth if we entered into a customs union in respect of tariffs, and he ended by saying:
So this objection, even if there were no other, would be quite fatal to any proposal that the United Kingdom should seek to take part in a European common market by joining a Customs union."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1956; Vol. 561, col. 37.]
That is the exact opposite of what he said in the House yesterday. Of course, anyone can change his mind—many of us do—but a change of mind on what the facts are and what is the basis must surely cast a great deal of doubt upon one's capacity to carry out the negotiation.
I think that I carry the House with me in asking the Minister tonight to make plain which of the two judgments is to be regarded as the Prime Minister's judgment, because they cannot both stand. We have to know what they deduce as a consequence of going into a customs union if we are to be able to judge. I have a feeling—that is why I emphasise it—that Ministers are working on the basis that there are some things which it is convenient sometimes to forget. This is a very bad basis for an issue as violent as this.
Unless we get this clear, it follows that the Europeans—I should not use that word, for we are all Europeans—the Six must know why we are coming in, and if they are faced with a kind of dual presentation they may be apt to think that we are going in for a quite different reason, and the leader in The Times this morning gives them another very convenient reason.
That is why those of us who see a case for negotiating to find out what the costs and consequences would be, perhaps feeling more keenly about it than others, cannot proffer our support to the Government. That is why we cannot accept the Motion. One cannot support—that is much too active a state—men who are not themselves clear about what they are negotiating about.
I want now to refer to our economic weakness. Let us be quite clear that this economic weakness is very much a matter for which the Government are responsible, and it is this economic weakness which some people believe to be the real reason for the change of mind and heart by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and it is something for which they are responsible. If this argument is deployed from this side of the House, there will be a tendency among hon. Members opposite to suggest that we are running the country down by talking of all sort of things which it would be better for others not to know, but there is no reason for not telling the Six what they already know.
During my visit to Europe to discuss these matters this weekend, I was left in no doubt when I asked whether we were regarded as coming in as a liability or as an asset. I was told by one of the most powerful men that we were not only a liability now, but that we would be for a couple of years and that one of the things which they would kindly do for us would be to help us for a couple of years while we got on our feet. I reacted as I have on previous occasions and I did the job for the Government, although why the devil I should is another matter.
But the point is that they understand it and regard us as a liability and it is vital that Ministers should not indulge in encouraging them to believe that that is the real reason. If there was any doubt, the Chancellor of the Exchequer removed it in his "Little Budget" speech, and the leader in The Times this morning, which I commend to hon. Members opposite and specially to Ministers, spells it out.
The Times leader examines the published losses of reserves in the first six months of the year and then refers—the first time I have seen it in print—to the extent to which we were supported by the central banks' agreement to look after sterling under what is called the Basle

arrangement, pointing out that by the end of June our reserves were down to the tune of probably £450 million. It goes on cuttingly to say that it was only when the European central banks had reached the limit of the aid which they were prepared to extend to us that we set about doing certain other things. The problem in negotiating now is that there are powerful people in Europe who believe that it was only when the European central banks came to an end of the aid which they were prepared to give us that the Government developed a change of heart.
This is a tremendous weakness in the Government's negotiating position. I am not pleased about it. [Laughter.] Not at all. I understand this country and I am proud of it. I am not pleased with it, but the Government had better understand that this is the cross under which they have to negotiate and this is the rod which they have made for their own backs.
If we want to make a success of these negotiations—[HON. MEMBERS: "Do you?"]—I said that very firmly at the beginning—we have to make the Six see us as an asset-bearing partner and not as somebody just putting in his overdraft, and Ministers have the responsibility for that, and not us.
I should like to make something else clear. The economic case against going in has been very heavily deployed in the last two days, as it always is outside. One cannot ignore it; it does exist. But at the end of the debate I am left with the feeling that the economic consequences of staying out are much less firmly and vigorously deployed—and there are great economic consequences from staying out.
One of the things that any trade union official has to bear in mind is that British industry is tending to go into the Common Market, whatever we do about it here, and if we were to allow that to happen it would be the worst of all situations—

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Why?

Mr. Brown: Because if British manufacturers, who ought to be putting new British investment into modernising and developing their factories here, do it over there, inside the tariff wall, it


will be very difficult for me to maintain jobs for my men over here. It is as simple as that.
There are certain economic questions that have not been answered by any of the three Ministers who have yet spoken, and I honestly think that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations should give the answer. Does he think that under the Treaty as it stands we shall have—or will he get it renegotiated to provide that we have—control over movements of capital from this country at any time of difficulty?
Will we have, under the Treaty as it stands, or does he think that he can arrange that we shall have, the ability to maintain the necessary internal machinery for planning our economy at times of difficulty? Can he tell us what the transitional period will be, and will he be quite firm about the voting position of ourselves and the Scandinavian countries, if they come in, to make sure that we can always avoid a two-thirds majority against us? These are vital questions for Britain, I would have thought, whether under a Labour or a Conservative Government, and it is one of the worrying features of this debate that no Minister has known the answer to these questions.
The third leg of our Amendment refers to our commitments to E.F.T.A. and to the position of the Commonwealth. As far as I can gather, we have solemn obligations to our E.F.T.A. partners. This seems to be common ground, but what is not common ground is the curious reluctance there has been on the part of Ministers to tell us the terms of the obligation that we have accepted towards our E.F.T.A. partners.
Evidence of this exists and there is no reason why people should not know it, yet Ministers are curiously reluctant to say so. The President of the Board of Trade last night made a reference to this, and he was then put under some pressure by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton and myself in an effort to get this clear. At the end, he had not got it clear. This is the arrogance of a Minister who thinks he knows, does not tell anybody, and then simply tosses away inquiries by saying that it is clear to everyone else.
Let us assume that I am as stupid as all that, and that he is as clever as all that. Would the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations—who may be in one or the other class, I do pot know which—make plain to me now what obligations we have entered into? I think that I am right in believing that we have given to each E.F.T.A. country, severally, an undertaking that we will not join the Common Market until each of them agrees that its legitimate interests have been protected. If we have given that undertaking, which is what I understand, we have, of course, given a veto to each member of E.F.T.A.
If we have not given that undertaking, my understanding is wrong and should be cleared up, but I want to be clear as to what the undertaking is, and I think that the House should be clear, because there then arises this other question: if we have given that undertaking to each member of the Seven, do we intend to give the same undertaking to each member of the Commonwealth? If we do, how much of a veto are we now raising? We are now, if we do the same, giving a veto to a wide range of countries inside the Commonwealth. But if we are not going to give it to the Commonwealth —and perhaps this is why the Government burke at a complete commitment to a Prime Ministers' conference—as we have given it to E.F.T.A., how are we proposing to explain it to the Commonwealth?
This may be a difficulty, but it is one that should be faced. The communiqués that came out after the meetings of what one hon. Member called "the three doves" but I shall call "the three old pigeons" who went around the Cornmonwealth countries clearly showed to anyone who read them that all we had done was to postpone a lot of issues to be settled later.
We should not engage in the Commonwealth in the same kind of double talk that we have, regrettably, indulged in in Europe in the past—since The Hague Conference and since. We should therefore be told just what is the commitment in Europe, Whether we are giving the same in the Commonwealth and, if not, what is the explanation.
I have listened to much of the debate and have been impressed by a great


deal of it. But one of the most fanciful, out of date and old fashioned attitudes appears to have come largely from the benches below the Gangway opposite concerning the kind of economic community the Commonwealth is ever likely to be. There has been a description of the possibilities of Commonwealth trade which I would not have though, could be believed in by any one who really thought about the kind of countries which make up the Commonwealth.
I do not suppose that those hon. Gentlemen opposite will accept that statement from me; if they will not, I urge them to consult some of the Prime Ministers. I urge them to realise that we must stop thinking any longer of the Commonwealth as being comprised of all white Dominions, sentimental attachments and all that sort of thing. It is a much bigger community than that. I urge them to consult Mr. Nehru, for example, about his vision of how trade will develop in the future for India. They will not get the sort of picture of a developing Commonwealth community as was presented by those hon. Gentlemen opposite.
There has been a good deal of wishful thinking of what they would like to see happen but what cannot happen. This is one of the reasons why we are debating this matter and why, as a result of our considering the Common Market, it is no longer so simple a matter. That is why we must face the complications that are involved. In and with Europe and in and with the Commonwealth, there has been on the part of this Government a great deal of double talk which is going to bounce back on them in the near future. That is why I say to the Prime Minister—directly, as is my fashion—that in the third leg of the Opposition's Amendment we cannot accept what the Prime Minister invites us to do following his assurances on this subject. We cannot accept them because there has been too much double talk in the past which still remains to be cleared up.
That is why we put so much emphasis in our Amendment, on a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. It is why we feel that we must bind the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministers not merely to saying that they will not object to a Commonwealth Conference if, at a suit-

able stage, it seems to be a good thing to have one. We must bind them to having a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference at the appropriate time in order to find out whether the Government's proposals—the outcome of their negotiations—are "generally agreeable", to use the traditional phrase of that conference.
I urge hon. Members to take the view that the Opposition Amendment is the only responsible basis on which negotiations can proceed. It is the only way in which we can produce an atmosphere of confidence between us and all our partners of the Six in Europe, outside the Six and in the Commonwealth.
We shall press the Amendment and trust to be supported on it by all of those who, while accepting that the negotiations are clearly going to happen, want to create the right atmosphere and climate for them to happen. Let me make it clear that if we are defeated on our Amendment, the Government then act on their authority, on their responsibility, in the light of the warnings and the criticisms which we have put to them today. We shall then watch most closely the proceedings that follow, ready for the momentous day when the decision has to be made in the light of facts that at present we have not got, in the light of facts which only then will become apparent.
I repeat, we hope that the negotiations will be successful. We have in all the reasons that I have deployed, and in the many more which have been deployed during the debate, many grounds for wondering whether they will or can be successful, but we hope that they will be. We hope to see a result which will meet the proper concern of people in all parts of this House and in the country as a whole. We hope that the result will be something directed to an acceptable economic social policy for us and for our partners.
But this I must say. There really must be no more double talk—[Laughter.] The difficulty in this House is that hon. Members are very good until about 9 o'clock, after which they rather go off colour. [Laughter.] This sort of thing happens regularly. We are quite used to it. I must tell hon. Members opposite that any interruptions will come out of the Minister's time.
There must be no more double talk of the kind which we have had, of which I have quoted examples from the Prime Minister, from the President of the Board of Trade and from the Minister of Aviation, because if there is, the end of this road, as was said this afternoon, will be that we shall find ourselves reviled by everybody. We shall find ourselves not only perfidious Albion in Europe but we shall be reviled by the Commonwealth and by our E.F.T.A. partners as well.
I close with one other warning, which is really important. I close with a reference which the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) made this afternoon and which moved me very deeply and, I think, everybody else who heard it. He referred to some words of the Prime Minister when he made his statement on Monday. When I talk about the necessity for being careful of how we present ourselves, this is the outstanding example of what I mean. The Prime Minister said in answer to the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke):
… if it fails"—
"it" being the negotiations—
then I think that we ought to be quite clear ourselves, and perhaps the countries with which we are to negotiate ought to be quite clear, that quite a lot of things will happen and quite major changes may have to be made in the foreign policy and the commitments of Great Britain."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st July 1961; Vol. 645, c. 937.]
Whatever else we do, let us not threaten the Western Alliance, on the one side, against these negotiations, on the other. If we do—and that clearly was what the Prime Minister had in mind—the end will be either that we shall be asked to sacrifice the Western Alliance for the outcome of this business, whatever the terms are, or we shall be asked to sacrifice this for the Western Alliance. That is an improper proposal to put before the House, and it is a very dangerous suggestion to put before Europe. I beg Ministers, as they enter these negotiations, to do so in a spirit very different from that.

9.25 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Duncan Sandys): Notwithstanding the speech to which we have just listened from the right hon.

Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), I believe that this debate will rank among the great occasions in the history of Parliament. We have been discussing one of the really big issues of modern times. The reason I said what I did about the right hon. Gentleman's speech was—

Mr. G. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman need not bother. It was in character.

Mr. Sandys: Not at all. I thought that it was unnecessary for the right hon. Gentleman to refer, over and over again, to "double talk". I listened carefully to his speech. He said that he wished us well, but he said that he could not support us. If that is not double talk, I do not know what is.
As was to be expected, the divisions of opinion have cut right across the loyalties of parties, and some very strange alliances have emerged. Almost everyone who spoke did so with a sense of strong conviction one way or another. I say "almost", because the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in what I shall describe as a notable balancing act, ably stated the case on both sides.
It was natural that the House should concentrate on the basic issue, whether or not Britain should join the European Economic Community. But, of course, the question which we have to decide tonight is more limited, namely, whether we should or should not enter into negotiations. If by doing nothing we could play for safety, there might be something to be said for it, but I say to the House that, even if we wanted to, there is no way of escaping a decision.
If after so much discussion and consultation we now shrank from the step of opening negotiations, that would amount to a decision to stay out of Europe which it would be very difficult later to reverse. It would, I submit, be a much more momentous and irrevocable step than the one which we are asking the House to take tonight.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and others expressed the fear that if Britain joins the Common Market she will lose her separate identity. I should like very much to face this issue. In particular, it is feared


that our political sovereignty would become merged in some kind of European super State and that, in consequence, we should cease to be able to formulate an independent foreign policy, or to make an independent contribution to the political thinking of the Commonwealth.
There is no political responsibility which is more fundamental than the responsibility for national defence. Yet, by joining N.A.T.O. and transferring a large part of our Armed Forces to an integrated international command we have in practice—let us recognise it—greatly limited our freedom to decide for ourselves the ultimate issue, the most important of all, of peace or war. Other Commonwealth Governments are members of military alliances, but, as far as I know, it has never been suggested that Canada's membership of N.A.T.O. or Australia's membership of S.E.A.T.O. are in any way inconsistent with their membership of the Commonwealth. I therefore cannot see that our participation in the political co-operation which is envisaged within the European Economic Community need disturb in any way the existing system of Commonwealth consultation or reduce the value and scope of our contribution to it.
In this connection, I should like to say a word or two about the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). Although it was not called, I believe that it reflects the anxieties which are felt by a number of hon. Members on this issue. I propose—and I hope that it will be helpful—to give a clear and unequivocal answer to the three points raised in the Amendment. I imagine that great thought was given to the drafting of the Amendment and I believe that it summarises very clearly some of the anxieties felt by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
First, the Government have no thought —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] This is an important issue. The Government have no intention of bringing before the House proposals which would involve any derogation of British sovereignty outside the sphere specifically covered by the Treaty of Rome. [Laughter.] It is all 'very well for hon. Members to laugh. What that means is that the derogation of sovereignty does not extend beyond the economic and social

sphere set out in the text of the Treaty, which all hon. Members know.

Mr. H. Wilson: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a very serious point, which is of importance to the whole House. Is he now saying, therefore, that in the negotiations the Government will make it clear to those with whom they negotiate in Europe that we do not accept, now or at any other time, a federal commitment if we sign the Treaty of Rome?

Mr. Sandys: If the right hon. Gentleman had not interrupted, he would have seen that I was dealing with the Amendment. I shall be quite unequivocal. I am dealing with the Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman had read my right hon. Friend's Amendment he would know that that point is dealt with, and I shall deal with it now. [Interruption.] I will deal with the right hon. Gentleman in due time, tonight.
Secondly, we shall not—this is the point which the right hon. Gentleman interrupted me about, and if he had waited he would have heard—in the course of the negotiations give any undertaking—I am using the words of my right hon. Friend's Amendment—implied or otherwise, which would commit Britain to join a European political federation, and, I must add, nor, I am sure, shall we be asked to do so.

Mr. Warbey: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Sandys: Thirdly, we have no thought of considering any proposals which would prevent Britain from continuing to play her full part in the affairs of the Commonwealth and the world. In view of these clear assurances on all three points in their Amendment, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be able to support the Government Motion tonight.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: My right hon. Friend says that there would be no derogation of British sovereignty outside the scope of the Treaty of Rome. He will appreciate that there is material derogation of sovereignty in the articles of the Treaty of Rome itself. Will he say, first, whether he will negotiate with a view to limiting this derogation so that there is, in fact, no material derogation of British sovereignty? Will he say,


secondly, whether the Government will go into the negotiations expressly saying that they do not envisage any ultimate political union or federation? Thirdly, it will help us a great deal if my right hon. Friend will answer this question. Would he be content, if it were procedurally possible, in effect though not in form, to add this addendum to the Motion as a guide for the future conduct of the Government?

Mr. Sandys: I think that the House will accept that I have given a clear unequivocal and categorical assurance on all three points raised in my right hon. Friend's Amendment.
I believe that everyone recognises the advantages which a large internal market offers to the efficient modern manufacturer. My noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) and the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) expressed doubts whether British industry will be able to hold its own in competition with its Continental rivals. I have more faith in the skill, energy and inventive powers of our people.

An Hon. Member: Why not have sufficient faith not to go into it?

Mr. Sandys: Whatever view one takes it is no good imagining that by staying out of the Common Market we can escape competition from European industry.
Our exports are already meeting keen competition from Europe, not only on the Continent but in third markets all over the world, including the Commonwealth. This will become more intense when the Common Market develops its potential. If by staying out of the Common Market we deny ourselves the advantages which our rivals will enjoy we shall merely be putting British industry in the position of having to compete with them on unequal terms.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd) made an interesting and valuable contribution to our debate, primarily on agriculture. He highlighted the main issue, namely, whether we shall be able to achieve in negotiation with the Six arrangements for our home agriculture which would

enable it to sustain its efficiency and prosperity. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear that any decision to join the European Economic Community must depend upon satisfactory arrangements being made to ensure the continued well-being of British agriculture. That is a firm pledge to the British farmer.
It is fortunate that we are not faced with any hard and fast European policy for agriculture. The common agricultural policy of the Community is still in the process of being worked out by the Six. That in itself is a strong argument for starting negotiations with the Community now, while its own policy is still fluid. If we delay until it is firmly settled, it will obviously be much more difficult to secure the special arrangements which we need.
In considering methods of protecting British farmers and Commonwealth producers—this is a point of importance—we must remember that their interests are, as often as not, in direct conflict with one another. Our farmers want Government help to maintain the highest level of domestic production. Commonwealth producers want exactly the opposite. From the point of view of Commonwealth countries which grow temperate foodstuffs, the level of agricultural production in Europe is even more important than the level of tariffs and quotas, about which so much has been said in this debate. What matters most to them is that Europe should not artificially stimulate high-cost food production to an inordinate level at the expense of imports from overseas.
Like ourselves, the Six have important manufacturing industries engaged in world-wide trade, and they know that to sell their goods to the great primary producing countries they must be prepared to buy their produce in return. It is therefore in their interest—and this I believe is reassuring—as much as in ours, to try to strike a reasonable balance.
The right hon. Member for Belper asked about the assurances which have been given to E.F.T.A. and to the Commonwealth and the question of the veto. I should like to give him a considered answer. The positions of E.F.T.A. and of the Commonwealth are, of course, not the same—I think it is important to recognise that—for this reason. The


E.F.T.A. countries will be negotiating terms far their own entry into the European Community. The Commonwealth countries, on the other hand, will not be applying for membership of the Community. The special arrangements to protect their interests will form part of the agreement between Britain and the Six if this can be concluded.
The E.F.T.A. countries have agreed among themselves to maintain the Association in being till satisfactory arrangements have been worked out in negotiations to meet their legitimate interests, and in order to enable them to participate in the Common Market as from the same date, in regard to the Commonwealth Governments, we have assured them that we will seek to negotiate satisfactory arrangements to protect their essential interests.
Everyone is agreed—and this is my answer to the right hon. Gentleman—that the decision whether or not Britain joins the European Economic Community is a decision which Britain alone can take. None of our partners, either in the Commonwealth or in E.F.T.A., will, I am sure, claim a right of veto. We have undertaken to keep in the closest touch with the Commonwealth and E.F.T.A. Governments throughout the negotiations. In both cases we shall fully consult them before reaching any decision.
Again, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I would say that if the Commonwealth Prime Ministers wish to have a meeting for this purpose when the negotiations have reached a certain point, we shall be very ready indeed to arrange one. I can give that assurance.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) and other hon. Members urged that as an alternative to joining the Common Market we should seek to expand our trade with the Commonwealth. They suggested that Commonwealth preferences should be increased for this purpose and that G.A.T.T. should be revised to make this possible.
It is, I think, quite inconceivable that we could get a change in G.A.T.T. for this purpose. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why? "] I think that everybody who knows anything about the workings of G A.T.T. will agree with me.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Get out of it.

Mr. Sandys: That is quite another matter, but that is not what is being proposed. Even if that were possible —this is the point I wish to make—the Commonwealth Governments would almost unanimously reject the idea, and that is a fact which we have just got to recognise.
But, quite apart from that, it would not, of course, offer us the advantages which we would obtain from a customs union. If we join the Common Market our manufacturers will be able to offer their goods over a wide area without any tariffs on any item; in other words, exactly as they sell them at home today in the British market. It is this fact that gives the opportunities of specialisation, large-scale production, and all the economies of scale that an industrial society like ours needs in order to be fully efficient. If the Commonwealth—believe me, nobody is more attached to the Commonwealth than I am—is to afford us these advantages, it can only be by means of a Commonwealth customs union or a free trade area.
The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) said we should have proposed this to the Commonwealth Governments. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is so out of touch with economic realities. In any case he was largely answered by his right hon. Friend the Member for Belper in his speech tonight. Nothing would suit us better than Lord Beaverbrook's great concept of Empire Free Trade. Of course it would suit us in every way. The trouble is that it would not suit anybody else at all.
The right hon. Member for Huyton said he hoped that we would not be asked to make a choice between Europe and the Commonwealth. As many hon. Members who worked with me after the war know well, I am deeply attached to the cause of European unity. In fact I was the founder and first chairman of the international European Movement which brought the Strasbourg Assembly into being. At the same time I am half a New Zealander, and I am as proud of the old British Empire, and as devoted to the new Commonwealth, as any hon. Member in this House. It would therefore be particularly painful for me to


have to choose between the Commonwealth and Europe. But I believe that my European friends will not misunderstand me if I say that if I were forced to make this cruel choice I would unquestionably choose the Commonwealth.
Happily, we are not confronted with this dilemma. Europe fully recognises the importance of the Commonwealth. M. Spaak, speaking recently in the Belgian Parliament, said:
No European can wish to see the dissolution of the Commonwealth. A solution must be found which will allow Britain to join the Common Market, and which will at the same time safeguard the Commonwealth.
Mr. Menzies, who has been quoted in various ways, also has rejected the suggestion that if Britain joined the Common Market this would break up the Commonwealth. He added, however—I shall be quite frank with the House—that in his opinion it would in due course bring about a change in the Commonwealth relationship.
That may be true, but what kind of change? I believe that the biggest change would be not in the relationship between Britain and the Commonwealth, but in the relationship between the Commonwealth and Europe. There is absolutely no reason why we cannot draw closer to Europe without drawing away from the Commonwealth.
What I believe will happen is that, through Britain, the Commonwealth and Europe will be drawn closer to one another, and that would be unquestionably to the advantage of both.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) who, judging from his speech tonight, seems to have changed his mind, expressed this idea very well some years ago in a pamphlet entitled "Keep Left". He wrote these words, and I cannot express it better:
The true defence of the Commonwealth as an association of free peoples depends on the unification of Europe which cannot be achieved if Britain stands aside.

Mr. M. Foot: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Foot: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has not misquoted it,

but that proposal was not a unification of half Europe but the unification of the whole of Europe. This is the unification of half Europe.

Mr. Sandys: Nobody would be happier than I to see the unification of the whole of Europe.
Of all organisations the Commonwealth is one which should least be afraid of change. Its ability to adapt itself to new conditions in a changing world is the whole secret of its success. The Commonwealth is itself the child of change. We should not assume that if we stay out of Europe, Britain's relationship with the Commonwealth would necessarily remain just as it is today.
If, through depriving ourselves of the benefits of the Common Market, we are outstripped commercially by our European competitors throughout the world, does anyone imagine that our position in the Commonwealth or our position in the world, or the position of the Commonwealth in the world would remain unaffected? A leading New Zealand newspaper summed it up in these very simple words:
A lesser Britain would mean a lesser Commonwealth.
Several hon. Members have argued that in view of the anxieties of the Commonwealth we ought not to take the step of opening negotiations. It is quite true that a number of Commonwealth Governments have expressed their concern in differing degrees. At the same time, they have made absolutely clear that the decision is one which Britain alone can take. Mr. Diefenbaker specifically endorsed this view in a statement last Monday. He added that the British Government's decision was not inconsistent with the Commonwealth relationship. If we alone are to bear the responsibility, and it is right that we should, then, after carefully weighing the advice of our friends, we must have the courage to act in accordance with our considered judgment.
It was my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) who, in 1946, with his unique personal prestige, called upon Europe to unite. From that moment, European unity ceased to be just a dream and was accepted by practical men as a realisable objective. That will, I believe,


rank among my right hon. Friend's very great contributions to history. But let us not conceal from ourselves the fact that Europe has been very sad that Britain has hesitated so long to follow her own lead. If, after satisfactory negotiations, we join the European Community, I am confident that we shall never regret it.
As the most highly industrialised country in a trading association larger than the United States a new horizon for economic expansion would open up before us. As a member of the inner councils of Europe, we should be able to make our own distinctive contribution to the political thinking of a group of nations, comprising about 250 million of the most skilled, educated, and experienced people in the world. If, as we believe, this relationship with Europe adds to Britain's economic strength and political influence, this must, in turn, add to the strength and influence of the whole Commonwealth.

The House tonight is being asked to authorise the Government to open negotiations, subject to the undertaking that no commitment will be entered into without the consent of this House. The right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Huyton and for Belper have wished the negotiations well. If they really mean that, how then can they, at the same time, deny us their support? The Opposition Amendment, by casting doubt on Britain's sincerity, is bound to weaken our hands in the negotiations. It is bound to make it more difficult to secure those very safeguards to which we all attach so much importance. I trust that all who genuinely care about these things will vote solidly against the Amendment.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 209.

Division No. 264.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Channon, H. P. G.
Freeth, Denzil


Aitken, W. T.
Chataway, Christopher
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Gammans, Lady


Allason, James
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
George, J. C. (Pollok)


Amery, Bt. Hon. Julian
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Gibson-Watt, David


Arbuthnot, John
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Glover, Sir Douglas


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth,W.)
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)


Atkins, Humphrey
Cleaver, Leonard
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)


Balniel, Lord
Cole, Norman
Godber, J. B.


Barber, Anthony
Cooke, Robert
Goodhart, Philip


Barter, John
Cooper, A. E.
Goodhew, Victor


Batsford, Brian
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Gough, Frederick


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Gower, Raymond


Bell, Ronald
Cordle, John
Grant, Rt. Hon. William


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Corfield, F. V.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Costain, A. P.
Green, Alan


Berkeley, Humphry
Coulson, J. M.
Gresham Cooke, R.


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Critchley, Julian
Grimond, J.


Bidgood, John C-
Crowder, F. P.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Bingham, R. M.
Cunningham, Knox
Gurden, Harold


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Curran, Charles
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bishop, F. P.
Currie, G. B. H.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Black, Sir Cyril
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hare, Rt. Hon. John


Bossom, Clive
Dance, James
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Davies,Rt-Hn,Clement(Montgomery)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Box, Donald
Deedes, W. F.
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
de Ferranti, Basil
Hastings, Stephen


Boyle, Sir Edward
Donaldson, Cmdr, C. E. M.
Hay, John


Braine, Bernard
Doughty, Charles
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Brewls, John
Drayson, G. B.
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
du Cann, Edward
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Duncan, Sir James
Hendry, Forbes


Brooman-White, R.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Eden, John
Hiley, Joseph


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Bryan, Paul
Elliott, R. W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)


Buck, Antony
Emery, Peter
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Bullard, Denys
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hobson, John


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hocking, Philip N.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Finlay, Graeme
Holt, Arthur


Butler, Rt.Hn.R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Fisher, Nigel
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hornby, R. P.


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Foster, John
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)


Cary Sir Robert
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hughes-Hallett, Vice-Admiral John




Hughes-Young, Michael
Mills, Stratton
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Hum, Sir Anthony
Montgomery, Fergus
Smithers, Peter


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Iremonger, T. L.
Morgan, William
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Morrison, John
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Jackson, John
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Speir, Rupert


James, David
Nabarro, Gerald
St. Clair, M.


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Neave, Airey
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Stevens, Geoffrey


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Noble, Michael
Stodart, J. A.


Joseph, Sir Keith
Nugent, Sir Richard
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Storey, Sir Samuel


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Kershaw, Anthony
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Kimball, Marcus
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Talbot, John E


Kirk, Peter
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Tapsell, Peter


Kitson, Timothy
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lagden, Godfrey
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Lambton, Viscount
Partridge, E.
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Teeling, William


Langford-Hott, J.
Peel, John
Temple, John M.


Leather, E. H. C.
Peyton, John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Leavey, J. A.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Leburn, Gilmour
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pitman, Sir James
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Lilley, F. J. P.
Pitt, Miss Edith
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Lindsay, Martin
Pott, Percivall
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Thorpe, Jeremy


Litchfield, Capt. John
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Turner, Colin


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Prior, J. M. L.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Longden, Gilbert
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
van Staubenzee, W. R.


Loveys, Walter H.
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Vane, W. M. F.


Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Pym, Francis
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


MacArthur, Ian
Ramsden, James
Walder, David


McLaren, Martin
Rawlinson, Peter
Wall, Patrick


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Ward, Dame Irene


Maclean,Sir Fitzroy(Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)
Rees, Hugh
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Webster, David


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Renton, David
Wells, John (Maidstone)


McMaster, Stanley R.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Whitelaw, William


Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)
Ridsdale, Julian
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Rippon, Geoffrey



Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Maddan, Martin
Robson Brown, Sir William
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maginnis, John E.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Maitland, Sir John
Roots, William
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Woodhouse, C. M.


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Woodnutt, Mark


Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan
Woolam, John


Marten, Neil
Scott-Hopkins, James
Worsley, Marcus


Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Seymour, Leslie
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Sharples, Richard



Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Shaw, M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mawby, Ray
Shepherd, William
Mr. E. Wakefield and


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Colonel Sir H. Harrison.


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Skeet, T. H. H





NOES


Abse, Leo
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Dodds, Norman


Ainsley, William
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Donnelly, Desmond


Albu, Austen
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Driberg, Tom


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Callaghan, James
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Chapman, Donald
Edelman, Maurice


Awbery, Stan
Chetwynd, George
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Cliffe, Michael
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Baird, John
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Cronin, John
Evans, Albert


Bence, Cyril
Crosland, Anthony
Finch, Harold


Benson, Sir George
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Fitch, Alan


Blackburn, F.
Darling, George
Fletcher, Eric


Blyton, William
Davies, G Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)


Boardman, H.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics. S.W.)
Davies, Ifor (Cower)
Forman, J. C.


Bowles, Frank
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Boyden, James
Deer, George
Galpern, Sir Myer


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Delargy, Hugh
George,LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Dempsey, James
Ginsburg, David


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Diamond, John
Gooch, E. G.







Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Ross, William


Gourlay, Harry
Lipton, Marcus
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Greenwood, Anthony
Loughlin, Charles
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Grey, Charles
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
McCann, John
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
MacColl, James
Skeffington, Arthur


Gunter, Ray
McInnes, James
Slater, Mrs, Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Hall, Rt. Hn, Glenvil (Coins Valley)
McLeavy, Frank
Small, William


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sorensen, R. W.


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hayman, F. H.
Manuel, A. C.
Steele, Thomas


Healey, Denis
Mapp, Charles
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Stonehouse, John


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Marsh, Richard
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mason, Roy
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Mayhew, Christopher
Swain, Thomas


Hilton, A. V.
Mellish, R. J.
Swingler, Stephen


Holman, Percy
Mendelson, J. J.
Sylvester, George


Houghton Douglas
Milne, Edward E.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Monslow, Walter
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Hoy, James H.
Moody, A. S.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, John
Thornton, Ernest


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Moyle, Arthur
Tomney, Frank


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mulley, Frederick
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hunter, A. E.
Neal, Harold
Wainwright, Edwin


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Oliver, C. H.
Warbey, William


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Oram, A. E.
Weitzman, David


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oswald, Thomas
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Owen, Will
White, Mrs. Eirene


Janner, Sir Barnett
Paget, R. T.
Whitlock, William


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Wigg, George


Jeger, George
Pargiter, G. A.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Jenkins, Boy (Stechford)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wilkins, W. A.


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Peart, Frederick
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Pentland, Norman
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Popplewell, Ernest
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Prentice, R. E.
Wills, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Probert, Arthur
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Kelley, Richard
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Winter-bottom, R, E.


Kenyon, Clifford
Randall, Harry
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Rankin, John
Woof, Robert


King, Dr. Horace
Redhead, E. C.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Lawson, George
Reynolds, G. W.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Ledger, Ron
Rhodes, H.
Zilliacus, K.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)



Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Roberts, Coronwy (Caernarvon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Mr. J. Taylor and


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 313, Noes 5.

Division No. 265.]
AYES
[10.14 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Box, Donald
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)


Aitken, W, T.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Cleaver, Leonard


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Boyle, Sir Edward
Cole, Norman


Allason, James
Braine, Bernard
Cooke, Robert


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Brewis, John
Cooper, A. E.


Arbuthnot, John
Bromley-Davenport,Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Atkins, Humphrey
Brooman-White, R.
Cordle, John


Balniel, Lord
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Corfield, F. V.


Barber, Anthony
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Costain, A. P.


Barter, John
Bryan, Paul
Coulson, J. M.


Batsford, Brian
Buck, Antony
Critchley, Julian


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bullard, Denys
Crowder, F. P.


Bell, Ronald
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Cunningham, Knox


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Curran, Charles


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Currie, G. B. H.


Berkeley, Humphry
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Dance, James


Bidgood, John C.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Davies,Rt.Hn.Clement(Montgomery)


Bingham, R. M.
Cary, Sir Robert
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Channon, H. P. G.
Deedes, W. F.


Bishop, F. P.
Chataway, Christopher
de Ferranti, Basil


Black, Sir Cyril
Chichester-Clark, R.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.


Bossom, Clive
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Doughty, Charles


Bourne-Arton, A.
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Drayson, G. B.


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
du Cann, Edward




Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Langford-Holt, J.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Eden, John
Leather, E. H. C.
Rees, Hugh


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Leavey, J. A.
Renton, David


Elliott, R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Leburn, Gilmour
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Emery, Peter
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Ridsdale, Julian


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rippon, Geoffrey


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Lilley, F. J. P.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Finlay, Graeme
Lindsay, Martin
Robson Brown, Sir William


Fisher, Nigel
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Litchfield, Capt. John
Roots, William


Foster, John
Lloyd, Rt.Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nc'dfield)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Longden, Gilbert
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


Freeth, Denzil
Loveys, Walter H,
Scott-Hopkins, James


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Seymour, Leslie


Gammans, Lady
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Sharples, Richard


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Mac Arthur, Ian
Shaw, M.


Gibson-Watt, David
McLaren, Martin
Shepherd, William


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Maclean, SirFitzroy(Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Glyn, sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd A Chiswick)


Godber, J. B.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Smithers, Peter


Goodhart, Philip
McMaster, Stanley R,
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Goodhew, Victor
Macmillan,Rt. Hn.Harold(Bromley)
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Gough, Frederick
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Gower, Raymond




Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Macpherson, Nlail (Dumfries)
Speir, Rupert


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
Maddan, Martin
Stanley. Hon. Richard


Green, Alan
Maginnis, John E.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Gresham Cooke, R.
Maitland, Sir John
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Stodart, J. A.


Gurden, Harold
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Maloolm


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Storey, Sir Samuel


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Marten, Neil
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Sumner, Donald (Orpington)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
St. Clair, M.


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Mawby, Ray
Talbot, John E.


Harvie Anderson, Mitt
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tapsell, Peter


Hastings, Stephen
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hay, John
Mills, Stratton
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)
Teeling, William


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Morgan, William
Temple, John M.


Hendry Forbes
Morrison, John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hiley, Joseph
Nabarro, Gerald
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Neave, Airey
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Hobson, John
Noble, Michael
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Hocking, Philip N.
Nugent, Sir Richard
Thorpe, Jeremy


Holt, Arthur
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford. W.)


Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Turner, Colin


Hornby, R. P.
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Osborne, John (Hailam)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Vane, W. M. F.


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Hughes-Young, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Partridge, E.
Walder, David


Iremonger, T. L.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Wad, Patrick


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pees, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Jackson, John
Peyton, John
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


James, David
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Webster, David


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Whitelaw, William


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pitman, Sir James
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Pitt. Miss Edith
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Joseph, Sir Keith
Pott, Percivall
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Kaberry, Sir Ronald
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wood. Rt. Hon. Richard


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Prior, J. M. L.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Kershaw, Anthony
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Woodnutt, Mark


Kimball, Marcus
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Woollam, John


Kirk, Peter
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Worsley, Marcus


Kitson, Timothy
Pym, Francis
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Lagden, Godfrey
Quennell, Miss J. M.



Lambton, Viscount
Ramsden, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Rawlinson, Peter
Mr. E. Wakefield and




Colonel Sir H. Harrison




NOES


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fell, Anthony
Zilliacus, K.
Mr. S. Silverman and Mr. Baxter.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Resolved,
That this House supports the decision of Her Majesty's Government to make formal application under Article 237 of the Treaty of Rome in order to initiate negotiations to see if satisfactory arrangements can be made to meet the special interests of the United Kingdom, of the Commonwealth and of the Euro-

pean Free Trade Association; and further accepts the undertaking of Her Majesty's Government that no agreement affecting these special interests or involving British sovereignty will be entered into until it has been approved by this House after full consultation with other Commonwealth countries, by whatever procedure they may generally agree.

BIRMINGHAM MATERNITY HOSPITAL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chichester Clark.]

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Denis Howell: I rise to raise a matter of considerable importance—the question of the Birmingham Maternity Hospital and the decision that it has taken unilaterally. Hon. Members will know that I am opposed to all forms of unilateral action whether taken in the higher realm of politics or in the realms of the health services of Birmingham.
Recently Birmingham Maternity Hospital, which is one of the teaching group of hospitals in the city, decided that it would admit 300 cases fewer per year. I am referring—and I think the Minister who will reply will agree with me—to what are some of the most difficult maternity cases in the city. Notwithstanding that fact, there are in Birmingham, of course, other large hospitals which deal with difficult maternity cases, and I am associated with some of them. The pressure on the whole of the maternity services in Birmingham is very considerable and the pressure of difficult cases—and I say this in view of a reply which I received from the hon. Lady recently—does not fall entirely on the Birmingham Maternity Hospital.
It has been estimated that, at the Dudley Road Hospital, one of the large maternity hospitals in the city which is doing tremendous work, 70 per cent. of its intake of maternity cases are emergency and difficult ones. But this hospital does not have the resources or the nursing power to cope with a heavy additional burden, compared with that available in the nursing service attached to the United Teaching Hospital.
The decision to take 300 fewer cases a year raises great problems. These are cases that must go into hospital or must receive expert attention, and one must be concerned to ensure, especially in view of the extremely difficult time which these ladies go through, that they have medical attention. A regretful fact

is that the decision to which I refer was taken entirely unilaterally. The hospital did not consult the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board, any of the other hospitals in the city or the City Maternity Hospital and it is, therefore, a disgraceful piece of social irresponsibility. I have said that before and I am sorry to have to repeat it now. Highly efficient though the medical attention at the Birmingham Maternity Hospital may be, I do not believe that it can divorce itself from the social consequences of the Health Service which face all the hospitals in Birmingham.
That is what has happened here. When I asked the Minister of Health a little time ago what communication had taken place between the teaching hospital group and the Regional Hospital Board I was told that it was not in the public interest to disclose communications between the teaching hospital group and the Birmingham Maternity Hospital. Why not? I ask the hon. Lady: have we reached the state of affairs in such an important field of social policy, the administration of our hospitals, that the relationship and liaison between the teaching groups and the regional hospital boards should be treated as if it were controlled by M.I.5, or that this is a question of such national importance that Members of Parliament cannot be given any information?
This is absolutely deplorable and I hope the hon. Lady will not rest on that line of defence tonight. It is deplorable that Members of Parliament concerned with the cohesion of all of the Health Service facilities, such as the practical after-effects of a decision such as I have mentioned, are not given the fullest possible information. This is treating the House of Commons with the greatest of contempt, and I hope that the hon. Lady will reflect on this. I can understand the desire of the Ministry, which I suppose was not consulted either, to bat on behalf of one of its departments, but I do not see how the hon. Lady, who represents the Birmingham constituency of Edgbaston, can defend a situation where Members of Parliament are not given vital information to enable them to arrive at decisions and conclusions.
The most important point which comes out of this whole affair, as far as I can


see, is that there is a very serious deficiency indeed in the administrative setup of the Health Service when the teaching hospital group, which is not controlled by the Regional Hospital Board, can ac in this manner which is against the interests of the Health Service as a whole. Neither the Health Service nor the country can afford to put millions of pounds into the development of costly hospitals doing wonderful teaching work—I am the first to pay tribute to them—but in isolation from their responsibilities to the community as a whole.
Some of us have suspected for a long time—certainly I have—that the teaching hospitals in Birmingham, in carrying out their duties and following their legitimate interest in teaching in the medical world, have more and more tended to divorce 'themselves entirely from the social needs and realities of the community within which they work. I gather that this is not a criticism which applies in other areas, where there is the most effective liaison between teaching groups and the regional hospital board hospitals. In other areas, I gather, there is a tremendous desire on the part of the teaching groups to take their fair share of the social load. If the teaching hospitals divorce themselves entirely from the normal day-to-day work, they cannot perform their teaching functions properly.
Here we have a situation, as I say, which has caused tremendous concern. I ask the hon. Lady to deal with the general fundamental issue of the relationships in the National Health Service between the teaching group on the one hand and the regional hospital board on the other. If there is no proper liaison and co-operation, a very serious deficiency has been exposed.
The next point is: who is going to do the work left as a result of this decision of the Birmingham Maternity Hospital to take 300 fewer cases a year? In practice, most of these cases are now finding their way to Dudley Road Hospital and other hospitals of a similar nature, but most of them going to Dudley Road Hospital. This is a hospital which, in the last three years, has increased its intake into its maternity wards considerably beyond the point to which it is safe for such a hospital to go. The load on the Dudley Road Hospital is quite enormous, and the load on its nursing staff

is more than any hospital administrator is entitled to place on young girls taking up nursing.
That was the position before this unilateral action of the Birmingham Maternity Hospital, and it has been materially worsened by the after-effects of that action. Not only is the load on the hospital itself great, but there is tremendous pressure now put on the hospital authorities to do all sorts of undesirable things as a result of the position in which the Birmingham Maternity Hospital has put the Regional Hospital Board. There is pressure, for instance, to cut down the number of days for which women stay in hospital after delivery of their babies. I hope that the hon. Lady will refer to some of these unsatisfactory trends.
It is not only the hospital service which must bear the heat and burden of the day. The city maternity services are feeling the pressure. If Dudley Road Hospital, Selly Oak Hospital and other hospitals said that they must have regard to the pressure on their nurses—which I believed to be much greater than the pressure in Birmingham Maternity Hospital, though that was the reason the Maternity Hospital gave for its decision —the result at the end of the day would be an enormous added burden on the city midwifery service's.
I had the privilege and pleasure of sitting under the chairmanship of the hon. Lady when she was chairman of the Birmingham maternity services committee. I know that she jealously guards the standards of the city's services and she would not in her present capacity wish to do anything to undermine them. I know very well that the contrary is true. But what would she say—perhaps she will think this an unfair question, although it really is not—if she were now the chairman of the maternity services committee of the Birmingham City Council faced with the situation which her present successor has? Knowing the facility with which the hon. Lady can express herself very forcefully and clearly, I can hazard a very good guess at the sort of line she would take in the Birmingham City Council today.
The city midwifery services are under very great strain. In another debate recenty, I mentioned that the increase in the birth rate in Birmingham in the past


six years has been from 17,000 to over 21,000, a rise of over 20 per cent. There is tremendous pressure on all sections of the city midwifery services as well as on the maternity hospitals. In that general context, one cannot possibly justify the sort of unilateral action which the Birmingham Maternity Hospital has taken.
I hope that the hon. Lady will say honestly how the Ministry reacts to this deplorable situation. It is natural that the Ministry would not wish to become involved in pubic argument about different sections of the Health Service, but I sincerely believe that, where one is faced, as one is in this case, with irresponsible unilateral action which affects all the other hospitals and services in the city, one is not only entitled but one has a positive duty to make the strongest possible protest. That protest I make tonight in this Adjournment debate.
I make more than that protest. I am anxious to find out how those of us responsible for the administration of other hospitals in the city are supposed to get the united teaching hospitals out of their dilemma without imposing a further and intolerable burden upon our nursing staff.

10.40 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): In order to set the scene to enable me to reply, I shall have to tell the hon. Gentleman something which I think that he knows perfectly well, and certainly I do, that in our City of Birmingham both domiciliary and institutional births have increased rapidly. In 1955 the domiciliary births were 6,237 and in 1960, 7,600. Births in hospitals in the same years have risen from 11,035 to 13,533. The maternity beds in Birmingham, as again the hon. Gentleman knows, are provided at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital and the Birmingham Maternity Hospital and by the hospitals in the Dudley Road and Selly Oak groups by the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board. I think that the hon. Gentleman may like to know that over the last eight years the total number of staffed maternity beds available has risen from 605 to 651, though I would add immediately that I know that there is room for further improvement.
An indication of the rate of increase of confinements at the Birmingham Maternity Hospital is that the average number of births per month was 159 in 1955 and 206 in 1959 and had risen to 223 per month for the first ten months in 1960. At this average the pressure on the hospital and its staff was considered to be such that it could no longer be safely maintained. In October, 1960, the consultant paediatrician formally recommended that action needed to be taken to ease the burden on the paediatric staff. It had recently happened that no less than ten exchange transfusions had had to be performed in thirteen days. Early in November the matron reported the serious illness of one of her most senior midwifery staff and the pending resignation, on account of overwork, of others of that staff. The decision to limit the number of admissions to the hospital by a planned reduction in the number of forward bookings in the early period of pregnancy was not, however, taken only to relieve pressure on the staff of the hospital but also for the safety of patients.
Furthermore, the Birmingham Maternity Hospital has traditionally accepted the obligation to receive all obstetric emergencies which may be referred to it. This is not to suggest that this obligation is not also accepted by other hospitals in Birmingham, but the continued acceptance by the Birmingham Maternity Hospital of these emergencies previously booked elsewhere—including arranged home confinements—who by some change in medical or obstetric condition either in the latter period of pregnancy or in acute emergency, was in danger by October, 1960, of not being fulfilled. Many of these emergency cases originate from references from outside Birmingham City. Of the first 1,000 confinements in the Birmingham Maternity Hospital in 1961 55 per cent. were from the city and 45 per cent. from outside its boundaries, and the general pattern is that roughly an average of half come from outside the city.
The decision taken in November, 1960, to limit bookings to 1,894 per month, that is, 2,208 per annum, enabled the hospital to continue its working arrangements so that it could maintain fifty places


for patients in obstetric or medical emergency which from experience was regarded as a necessary level, and one which it was considered had to continue to secure an essential service to the Birmingham region as a whole.
Restrictions on the number of forward bookings had been needed in the past in 1954–55 when the activities of the hospital were established at approximately 1,900 confinements and in 1957–58, at approximately 2,300 confinements. The limitation on booked confinements at the Birmingham Maternity Hospital since November has been achieved in two ways. First, by some intensification of the normal procedure, that is, consultation between the consultant and the general practitioner according to the individual circumstances of the case, with the result that, where it has been possible to make satisfactory arrangements with the general practitioner and the midwifery service, confinements have taken place at home. Secondly, a further proportion will have been admitted for hospital confinement both in the peripheral and in other Birmingham hospitals, probably especially at Dudley Road Hospital.
I have looked at the statistics of Dudley Road Hospital, knowing the hon. Member's personal connection, with it. For the first five months of 1961 they show an increase in the monthly maternity admission from an average of 360·5 per month in 1960 to 421·2 per month this year. Emergency admissions have risen from an average of 115·2 per month in 1960 to 162 per month in the first five months of 1961. Caesarian sections have increased from an average of 18·6 per month to 25·8 per month. Instrumental deliveries have increased from 14·4 per month to 26·8 per month. Total deliveries have increased from an average of 301·6 per month to an average of 336 per month. I should add that the increase in total confinements at that hospital is also partially due to the rising birthrate and other special local circumstances.
How big is the problem that has resulted from this decision at Birmingham Maternity Hospital? To have made it possible to revert to bookings at the same level and according to the same standards obtaining at the Birmingham Maternity Hospital before November,

1960, involving an added 300 deliveries per year, would have required a minimum of twelve extra beds. That is the size of the problem. I should add that all cases which are potentially normal but which develop complications in labour at home are admitted to the hospital at the request of the general practitioner. Furthermore, the flying squad is available in the city as an ancillary help for difficulties arising in domiciliary confinements, but as far as the Regional Hospital Board is aware all cases with a medical indication in pregnancy are delivered in hospital. At present it is not possible to admit all cases with a medical indication for ante-natal treatment. Arising from this difficulty, which arises from the Loveday Street Hospital—as I prefer to call it—certain conclusions can be drawn.
The long-term solution to problems of pressure on admission for necessary confinements in hospitals is, in Birmingham as elsewhere, the provision of more fully-staffed beds. Provision of additional beds at the Birmingham Maternity Hospital on its present congested site, which is due for demolition, has not been practicable, but as is known, plans are being made for the building of a new maternity hospital near the Queen Elizabeth Hospital replacing the Birmingham Maternity Hospital and also providing additional beds. Six other major schemes providing new maternity units for the region have received approval in principle and the total needs of the region have been thoroughly surveyed in the ten-year development plans now submitted to my right hon. Friend. The particular problem was one requesting as far as possible short-term alleviation, and it is on these lines that it has been considered by all those concerned. Their proposals are essentially for local deliberation and arrangement. My Department will continue its interest and will give any help it can in the solution of these difficulties.
It is clear that the experience to be gained from these occurrences as to the interdependence of units in hospital service and the Health Service as a whole is already being put into effect and no doubt that will also stand to the general advantage for the future. The hon.


Member referred to his earlier Parliamentary Question which began his discussions on this matter. He said that my reply then indicated that to disclose what consultations took place and to make these known was not in the public interest. That is not correct. What I said was that it would not be in the interests of the hospital service to disclose communications between boards, and that I must repeat tonight.
This is part of an integrated service, to Which the teaching hospitals have a contribution to make. We in the Ministry look for liaison. We expect it to be provided and maintained, and the request we have recently made to all regions to submit to us their ten-year development plans will help still further to increase the liaison available between all the hospitals in the area about the provision that they make to this service.
There are three parts, particularly in maternity work—the teaching hospitals, the hospitals of the regional board, and the local authority; and I cannot say too firmly how important it is to maintain good liaison in the interests of the people who are to receive that service.

10.51 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I do not think that even the hon. Lady can feel satisfied with the reply She has given to the main point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell), which was the apparent total failure in this case of communication between the teaching hospital and the regional board. There is a serious lack of liaison in the hospital service, and I speak with some feeling as a member of

a regional hospital board within whose region there are no fewer than twelve teaching hospitals.
There are two views about the autonomy of the teaching hospital under its board of governors. If the boards of governors want to jeopardise that autonomy, they should continue to behave in the way that the governors of the United Birmingham Hospitals have done in this instance. It is quite unpardonable to take a decision of this kind, which thrusts an extra load on the regional board hospitals, without proper consultation. I am disappointed that the hon. Lady, duty bound as she is so far as possible to defend the board of governors, did not at least indicate that that was her view and the Ministry's view, too.
After all, the regional hospital board has a duty to plan hospital services within its region. It is probably its most important function, and it cannot carry out that function unless it has proper liaison and proper consultation with the boards of governors of the teaching hospitals in its midst.
The hon. Lady said that her Ministry looked for liaison and consultation. It is not good enough merely to look for them. She and her Ministry have a duty, and I hope that, by whatever means seem appropriate, she will convey to the United Birmingham Hospitals that they have not behaved very well on this occasion and that she and her Ministry will see that in future decisions of this kind are reached as the result of proper consultation between all branches of the hospital service.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.